Route Development & Rumours

[tpm]

Nice if backed by discussions happening in the background, but sounds otherwis pretty much like what's been repeated on a regular basis ever since the Newark route was lost. Though I guess Dubai is new?

 

[Jerry]

Though I guess Dubai is new?

Not really as hasn't an ME3 hub always been a target? I suppose the difference is that Dubai was mentioned specifically which suggests that Doha and Abu Dhabi aren't on the table maybe?

 

[Marko1]

I would say that Dubai is the most viable option - excellent connecting network plus Dubai would be a holiday destination in its own right. Plus Emirates now could have the right aircraft for the route in the pipeline.
I still think however JetBlue and Turkish/ Pegasus are the best options

 

[Jerry]

Question with Dubai though is would Emirates operate to an airport that doesn't have a cargo operation? Having no cargo operation could mean they'd earn less money than if they operated elsewhere.
I generally think New York is unrealistic but Istanbul will happen eventually.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

It looks as though the interview with the local paper's business desk was timed to coincide with the partial lifting of overseas travel restrictions.
These routes have been aspirational for many years. Whether there is now a more solid foundation on which to base these projections only those with responsibility for such things at the airport and with potential airlines would know.

It's not quite the case that Dubai has not been previously mentioned by the airport in this context. The current master plan was published in 2006 with the updated one long overdue (public consultations began in 2017), although the pandemic and uncertainty over the airport's future passenger capacity has probably been the reason for the non-appearance of a new plan.

The 2006 master plan covers the period from 2006 to 2030 although 2016-2030 is in outline form and further updates were expected along the way. The plan was remarkably accurate in its annual passenger number projections, with the then managing director (Andrew Skipp) writing in the foreword to the master plan that the airport was expected to handle between 10 mppa and 12 mppa by 2030. 9 mppa had already been reached at the beginning of 2020 with the current passenger cap of 10 mppa almost certainly reached by the end of this year but for the pandemic.

The airport now says that if it is allowed to increase its cap to 12 mppa the pandemic will have delayed reaching that figure until 2030 when previously it was expected by 2025/2026.

In its 2006 master plan the airport says this about scheduled long-haul routes:

There is a limited demand for many of these destinations from the Bristol catchment area in the Master Plan period. The passenger forecasts identify demand for four potential long haul routes by scheduled airlines. These are New York, Washington, Dubai and another US destination such as Atlanta.

New York (Newark) was already being served by Continental Airlines by the time the master plan was published. Incidentally, I was always surprised about the vagueness of a third American route.

I presume that the B 787-9 and A350-900 planned for delivery to Emirates in the next 2-3 years could operate out of BRS to Dubai. Qatar could operate its 787s if it chose to. After all, TUI operates its 787-8s non-stop with 9 series occasionally substituting on considerably longer routes than BRS-Doha. Whether there would be a commercial case, especially if there was no cargo carried, is another matter. It would be interesting to know how much a part cargo plays in terms of revenue with Qatar Airways on its CWL-DOH route.

 

[CM.]

Interesting!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1415316981872570369

 

[8mileshigh]

2021?

 

[CM.]

2021?

No, he meant 2022 a typo error.

 

[Marko1]

The press release mentions a partnership with Bristol airport so this could have some legs. Very exciting if it comes to something particularly as a way of showing potential suitors the demand for a Middle Eastern route for example.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

The press release mentions a partnership with Bristol airport so this could have some legs. Very exciting if it comes to something particularly as a way of showing potential suitors the demand for a Middle Eastern route for example.

I have a feeling that there are airlines awaiting the result of the BRS appeal. A successful outcome for the airport would raise what would still be an artificial cap on passenger numbers although the pandemic has taken the heat out of the situation currently. However, if the pandemic effects are largely out of the way in the next year or two BRS could quickly get back up towards its current planning cap of 10 mppa.

It had gone though the 9 mppa rolling 12 months in February 2020 with the airport anticipating 9.3 million in that calendar year and very close to 10 million this year.

A reminder to anyone who might not be up to date that the public enquiry element of the appeal is due to begin next Tuesday and is scheduled to take ten weeks although the three planning inspectors will not be sitting every day throughout this period.

 

[Marko1]

Yes I have that feeling too somehow.

 

[Marko1]

Rather interestingly absolutely no mention of eurowings new service to Prague on any media platform associated with the airport

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Rather interestingly absolutely no mention of eurowings new service to Prague on any media platform associated with the airport

Certainly nothing on the BRS website press release section. I don't 'do' social media so was unaware that there was nothing from the airport there either.

The local rag did carry a report but instead of it being based on an airport press release, which is their usual method of reporting BRS news, it was sourced from social media which is another way that Reach plc gets hold of news, whether aviation or something else.

Whilst on the subject of routes there still seems nothing to Tunisia next year from any airline. This omission is as odd as Ryanair's ditching Malta.

 

[Marko1]

Tunisia is a strange one. Maybe easyJet will pick this one up like Malta

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Tunisia is a strange one. Maybe easyJet will pick this one up like Malta

easyJet is only showing availability on Malta until the end of October this year. When we remember that Ryanair operated Malta year-round for many years, and just a few years ago there were three airlines doing Malta in summer, it's another of those situations that is difficult to understand.

The same applies with Tunisia. Monastir was a regular for year after year before being superseded by Enfidha. We flew to Monastir from BRS on a MyTravel A321 nearly 20 years ago just after Airtours changed its name to MyTravel.

Looking at Enfidha airport only two airlines seem to serve the UK:

easyJet to Gatwick and Manchester in summer, and TUI to Birmingham, Manchester and Gatwick year-round and in summer to Cardiff, Doncaster-Sheffield, East Midlands, Glasgow, Luton and Newcastle.

When you consider that BRS has been TUI's fourth largest UK base for several years the omission of Tunisia seems odd. They no doubt have their reasons as with Ryanair and Malta.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Talk is increasingly turning to 2022 in the aviation world with various estimates of how matters will pan out - always dependent on the state of the pandemic next year.

In the BRS Jet2 forum members have outlined schedules for the main part of summer 2022 and they suggest a need for either 6 or 7 based aircraft.

Were that to transpire together with the other based airlines at the airport returning to previous fleet complements (see below) it would mean 34/35 based aircraft plus an overnighter (KLM):

easyJet 18
TUI 6
Ryanair 4 (the airline also operated the equivalent of at least three based units using aircraft from other bases)

There is no certainty that all these aircraft will be needed but if substantial growth does return and the pandemic does not intervene in a meaningful way it could be that 2023 will need them all, if not 2022.

Apart from the based fleets there are other airlines serving the airport of course.

Jet2's arrival could produce an additional one million-plus seats next year. Given that the airport had passed 9 mppa in February 2020 (rolling 12-month total) Jet2’s activities could see the 10 mppa cap reached as early as the end of 2023 if the other airlines revert to their pre-pandemic fleet sizes and schedules because of demand. The airport has revised its original date of 2021 for 10 mppa because of Covid and is projecting 2025 or 2026.

There is some optimism around that if the pandemic can be effectively controlled aviation might recover more quickly than originally thought.

If BRS loses its planning appeal and therefore cannot get its annual passenger cap raised they might find themselves ‘maxed out’ with the current carriers. How would that play in any attempt to encourage the likes of Turkish Airlines, a ME player, other legacy carriers such as Swiss or the return of Brussels Airlines?

It does throw into sharper focus the importance of the appeal outcome so that the airport can effectively plot its future direction. I believe the much delayed new master plan will be published after the appeal decision is made known and will obviously have to take account of which side the decision fell.

 

[Marko1]

What could happen is that we could start a return to the 90s where by airlines revert back to the ‘big ‘ airports and we be expected to drive up the m5 or down the m4 to fly anywhere other than Spain. I really can’t see Ryanair or easyJet setting up alternative bases elsewhere in the south west as a result of the 10m cap being imposed. They will simply stop any expansion and develop elsewhere. I really feel pessimistic about the whole planning thing - so counter productive in terms of jobs , investment and even climate change. Have the airport done enough - could they have sorted a pilots car park for example ?

 

[Jerry]

I really can’t see Ryanair

Ryanair doesn't need to they can just carry on like now and add non based flights and I expect Easyjet will just develop more at Birmingham.
Will be interesting to see what happens with Bristols passenger cap.

 

[Marko1]

Growth would still require extra passengers and that wouldn’t change the need for extra flights that wouldn’t be allowed. I wonder if the airport should have made more concessions to get the approval for example less night flights , lower movements etc

 

[TheLocalYokel]

The staff car park including that for pilots is part of the previous planning consents from 2011. BALPA has said it has no objection in principle to the airport's expansion plans. It is using the Silver Zone car park extension part of the current planning application as a means of furthering its argument. I can certainly see BALPA's point given that the staff car park is on the south side and adds to the time flight deck crew take to report for duty on the north side. I don't think that the staff car parking issue in itself would make much if any difference to the decision of the planning inspectors.

If the airport wants to grow further it follows that partner airlines need to be able to make maximum use of their resources. easyJet for example would have to operate more flights outside the night-time period if flights in that period were restricted more. That would mean more aircraft and crews which would probably not be viable for the airline.

The airport is asking for the seasonality to be removed from the current night-time movements restrictions. Currently 3,000 movements are allowed between 2330 and 0600 in summer (BST) and 1,000 in winter. BRS wants the 4,000 movements spread across the entire year. The reason is that summer was at the limit of its allowance pre-pandemic whilst winter was significantly under-used. In practice that would mean more night-time flights in summer and probably broadly the same number as before in winter.

There is a further night-time movements limit that the airport is not asking to be reviewed. It relates to the 'shoulder' periods (2300-2330 and 0600-0700) when not more than 10,500 movements can be operated in any calendar year.

My own feeling is that whatever the airport had included or not included in its planning application it would still have been rejected by a planning committee that was largely against further expansion in any form. Had the application been heard before May 2019 when the new 'rainbow' council replaced the previous very large Conservative majority it's quite likely that the application would have been approved.

I remember saying on F4A when the new council was elected that the the writing was on the wall for the planning application so far as NSC was concerned. The councillors went against the advice of their own professional planning officers in rejecting the application but whether the professional planning inspectors agree with fellow professionals obviously remains to be seen.

If the inspectors do allow the appeal there is a likelihood that objectors will seek a statutory planning review (broadly similar to a judicial review) but that doesn't look at the merits of the application, only the way in which the decision was made.