Advertisement


Longhaul from Bristol

alphagolf

Premium Member Plus
Jun 8, 2010
504
230
143
Bowerhill, Melksham. Wiltshire
Thread starter #1
Interesting comment from Robert Sinclair CEO of Bristol Airport this evening at the IODtransport debate at the M shed.

On the subject of a return of a Bristol to New York route.
"Appetite is there, open again in a "couple of years".
I think with the airport expansion of facilities it can only encourage more airlines, routes and passengers. :D
 

Advertisement


TheLocalYokel

Administrator
Staff member
Jan 14, 2009
12,096
5,460
343
Wurzel Country
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 #2
In the local paper website edition this evening the CEO talks of a medium term goal for the return of a NYC route, rather than the next year or two.

He talks about Continental (now United) and that they said they would return when the market conditions 'are right'.

Recently anna-aero featured BRS and thought one of the MEB3 (Middle East Big Three- Emirates, Etihad and Qatar) was unlikely and that Turkish might be a more likely bet, though there was no suggestion even that was likely to be imminent.

BRS's problem of course is the size of aircraft it can take. It was hoped the B787 and A350 would overcome this to an extent and they still might.

I note the Thomson weekly charters to Florida and Mexico will operate midweek this summer as opposed to the weekends of previous years.

I'm amused at the Mayor of Bristol's sudden apparent love affair with the airport having previously been implacably opposed to its expansion. I think it's a form of cupboard love though as he thinks (with no realistic foundation or likelihood) that some sort of tie-up with CWL would reduce the need for more traffic at BRS itself.

He knows as much about the aviation industry as the First Minister of Wales which is nil.
 

Aviador

Administrator
Staff member
I've upgraded to support F4A!
Jan 12, 2009
12,628
3,675
323
HEAD OFFICE
Admin #3
I've just been reading an article on FlightGlobal about the A350 and so far there has been little interest in the smaller 270 seater A350-800 series, the type most suited to shorter runways. The 350 seater 900 series and the larger still 1000 series have the most orders so far.
 

ljm104

New Member
Mar 7, 2013
29
7
3
#4
I have noticed this pattern with a350 orders as well. One bit of hope for Bristol is that airbus are developing a "hot and high" varient of the 900 to be delivered to Qatar, Etihad, and Emirates that has a higher thrust rating.

The BRS runway is frustratingly close to being sufficient, considering that Emirates are able to operate a full 777-300er out of Newcastle, which is only 300m longer.

I wonder if a small runway extension will ever make it back onto the agenda at BRS?
 

TheLocalYokel

Administrator
Staff member
Jan 14, 2009
12,096
5,460
343
Wurzel Country
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 #5
I wonder if a small runway extension will ever make it back onto the agenda at BRS?
The master plan considered various options, all involving an extension at the eastern end (so far as I know, the western end has never been considered - the topography would make it a huge enterprise). The options considered were:

1. Do nothing

2. Extend the runway by 140 metres. This is the maximum that can be accommodated within existing airport land without the need for airport control of Felton Common. Even with this the A38 would need to be lowered into a 150 metre-long tunnel.

3. Extend the runway by 389 metres. This is the maximum extension that can be accommodated within existing airport land but a 240 metre by 150 metre area of Felton Common would need to come into airport control and the ILS localiser and potentially approach lighting would need to be moved to the Common.

4. Extend the runway by 239 metres with a 150 metre starter strip. This would add 389 metres to the 27 take off run but only about 150 metres to 09. However, there would be no need to encroach on Felton Common.

5. Extend the runway further. There are implications regarding the imposition of safety standards that could erode some of the potential benefit and approach lighting would probably have to be relocated onto the Common and possibly extended. The Common is designated as a Local Nature Reserve by the local authority under a 1949 Act of Parliament.

The conclusion was that 'the improvement in performance that might be achieved by extending the runway is relatively small in comparison with the costs and the potential environmental impact'. The airport's preferred option (when the Master Plan was published about eight years ago) was to do nothing but the matter would be kept under review.

Elsewhere in that Master Plan the airport long haul services were considered. The airport believed that there was 'limited demand' for long haul services from BRS and that passenger forecasts suggested demand existed only four lh routes by scheduled airlines ,viz, New York (already operating at the time of the Master Plan publication), Washington, Dubai 'and another US destination such as Atlanta'. However, there was further demand for lh services by 'holiday charter airlines'.

I've read or heard nothing to suggest that the airport's policy has changed in the years since the Master Plan's publication.
 

kraktoa

Active Member
Jun 16, 2013
677
231
43
#6
I think the airport and its CEO/management team are focusing on the wrong airline/route. New York and Continental/United saga is dead and buried. Given the current economic the airport should look East. With the dreamliner and A350 (soon) becoming the workhorses of the industry, the airport should put its effort into the Indian, Dubai and far east sector. Jet Airways has moved its hub from Brussels to Milan this year. Jet has tied up with Etihad. Air India is looking for a hub and has many 777 online already.

Bristol should seriously look to rival Birmingham and Gatwick for its far east routes. Air India nearly signed a deal with Dublin. Bristol should move in where Dublin failed. The South West needs a good hub airport and with teh new airliners coming on board, now is Bristol's times to strike.
 

TheLocalYokel

Administrator
Staff member
Jan 14, 2009
12,096
5,460
343
Wurzel Country
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 #7
I think the airport and its CEO/management team are focusing on the wrong airline/route. New York and Continental/United saga is dead and buried. Given the current economic the airport should look East. With the dreamliner and A350 (soon) becoming the workhorses of the industry, the airport should put its effort into the Indian, Dubai and far east sector. Jet Airways has moved its hub from Brussels to Milan this year. Jet has tied up with Etihad. Air India is looking for a hub and has many 777 online already.

Bristol should seriously look to rival Birmingham and Gatwick for its far east routes. Air India nearly signed a deal with Dublin. Bristol should move in where Dublin failed. The South West needs a good hub airport and with teh new airliners coming on board, now is Bristol's times to strike.
It's difficult to see BRS being on a par with LGW and BHX in terms of long haul to the East for two main reasons: the size of the BRS catchment and the operational constraints imposed by the runway.

The type of aircraft currently used to the Middle East or to India would be larger than BRS could realistically handle.

Thomson recently announced the axing of its transatlantic summer routes from the airport from next year and conjecture continues as to whether this was a commercial decision or an operational one. If the latter there may be a question mark about the 787's future use at BRS, at least with this airline.

There is no doubt that the economic power base of the world is changing and that doing business with the likes of China and India will assume greater and greater importance. Bristol already has strong business links with China, with Guangzhou (formerly known as Canton in the West and China's third largest city) one of Bristol's twin cities.

So if it is possible to operate the B 787 or A 350, or both, from BRS it would be a tremendous shot in the arm to the local economy.

A scheduled route to Turkey certainly features on the airport's serious wish list and this may turn out to be the best chance of a connection to the East.

Incidentally, welcome to Forums4Airports, kraktoa. We look forward to reading more posts from you.
 

alphagolf

Premium Member Plus
Jun 8, 2010
504
230
143
Bowerhill, Melksham. Wiltshire
Thread starter #8
A poster on another forum has suggested that Thomson Long haul will be back in 2015, the absence in 2014 is/was due to operational constraints which now appear not to apply.

So we could see the "Dreamliner" at Bristol in 2015 :good:
 

TheLocalYokel

Administrator
Staff member
Jan 14, 2009
12,096
5,460
343
Wurzel Country
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 #10
A poster on another forum has suggested that Thomson Long haul will be back in 2015, the absence in 2014 is/was due to operational constraints which now appear not to apply.

So we could see the "Dreamliner" at Bristol in 2015 :good:
This one? :plums:

If so, I read that post too - in the Cardiff thread where BRS seems to have been discussed quite a lot in the past week or so.

The information is from an established poster on that website who apparently works at BRS.

He talks about the problem being technical ones involving the dimensions of the B 787.

I presume he means in particular the width of the wing which BRS has long said (in its master plan) means backtracking the runway for anything bigger than a B 767.

It was always envisaged that the wing of an aircraft the size of the B 787 would overhang the full-length parallel taxiway boundary fence which BRS said many years ago (the master plan again) would be overcome by the use of turning circles and backtracking.

The poster now seems to suggest that backtracking (and the construction of turning circles that apparently was the main cause of the long haul cessation) won't be needed and the B 787 can use the parallel taxiway so long as there are no vehicle movements along the inside of the boundary fence.

If true, it seems a bit odd that this has now been discovered after years of apparent acceptance that a turning circle/backtracking would be necessary.

Apparently, preliminary walk on the central walkway has started and it's this walkway that is/was intended inter alia for use in connection with the B 787 according to the non-material amendment application to the local authority planning department at the beginning of this year
 

kraktoa

Active Member
Jun 16, 2013
677
231
43
#11
All of the above is true.

Central walkway work has started. There is talk of the aircraft stands being large enough to allow 787 parking. But no airline has yet come forward with a 787 route so nothing on the horizon yet.

NYC has gone to the backburner. Dubai though is much more possible.
 

ljm104

New Member
Mar 7, 2013
29
7
3
#12
Dubai would be a great step forward for the airport.

I realise it's a difficult question to answer, but does anyone have any insight as to whether an emirates a330 or 777 could operate satisfactorily out of BRS?
 

TheLocalYokel

Administrator
Staff member
Jan 14, 2009
12,096
5,460
343
Wurzel Country
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 #13
Dubai would be a great step forward for the airport.

I realise it's a difficult question to answer, but does anyone have any insight as to whether an emirates a330 or 777 could operate satisfactorily out of BRS?
I have no technical qualifications but I can never recall a B 777 of any airline operating into BRS in the past.

Aer Lingus A 330s have occasionally used BRS but on short-haul rugby trips to Ireland.

My strong feeling is that the runway length would preclude the possibility of a trip of seven hours on a B 777 even if it could use the airport. The same might apply to the A 330 which anyway are being phased out by Emirates.

Emirates also relies on freight as a component of its profitability calculations, something that BRS is singularly lacking in.

There is also the consideration that BHX is not that far away and it might be that the airline would not wish to dilute that operation.

At some stage the south west of Britain might well get a regular Middle East route but there is the dichotomy that BRS almost certainly has the better commercial case whereas CWL has the better operational one with its additional 380 metres of runway and lower elevation.

In the future a B 787 or A 350 might even up the operational considerations and some in the industry believe that BRS's best bet might be Turkish to Instanbul, but again there is the fact that BHX already has such a route.

There are always Qatar and Etihad with the former already operating the B 787-8 but I would guess they, like Emirates, are long shots............................then again NCL has an EK route to DXB so if it becomes operationally possible at BRS for a ME airline then I guess we should never say never.
 

kraktoa

Active Member
Jun 16, 2013
677
231
43
#14
While we talk of BRS developments, we should not lose sight of whats happening at the flying club next door.

Big hangar being built for a wealthy Brit who rhymes with Tyson. 2 private jets plus helicopter

more expansion of turning circles, more refueling stops, own bar and catering with viewing platform. Its all go over there.
 

TheLocalYokel

Administrator
Staff member
Jan 14, 2009
12,096
5,460
343
Wurzel Country
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 #15
Big hangar being built for a wealthy Brit who rhymes with Tyson. 2 private jets plus helicopter
Good to hear that the south side of of the airfield is not being left in a vacuum? No doubt the wealthy individual will use the aircraft to fly long distances at times.

The Bristol & Wessex Aeroplane Club seems to be doing well and the Bristol Flying Centre that also incorporates Centreline Air Charter is flourishing.
 

superking

Platinum Member
Feb 14, 2013
1,570
548
113
#16
since the airbus shuttle moved from filton. it seems like things have really taken off over the south side. fair play to them. in my book anything that does well is good.sorry for the little drift but had to put something down.
 

kraktoa

Active Member
Jun 16, 2013
677
231
43
#17
Florida Sanford cancelled for next year. Strange as it was a popular destination and the flights were full.
 

TheLocalYokel

Administrator
Staff member
Jan 14, 2009
12,096
5,460
343
Wurzel Country
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 #18
Florida Sanford cancelled for next year. Strange as it was a popular destination and the flights were full.
And Cancun of course. As we've discussed previously there is some doubt whether the removal of these routes for next summer is commercially based or an operational decision, possibly because the former First Choice lower capacity B 767-300s used on these routes may be phased out.

It was always thought that the B 787 would take over but clearly it won't next summer.

On another forum a poster who works at BRS suggested the problem with the B 787 and BRS was the turning circles required to enable back tracking because it was said the full length parallel taxiway was too close to the boundary fence meaning the wings would overhang. The same poster now says the problem has been overcome with a suggestion that the long haul will be back in 2015, this time with the B 787. We'll have to wait and see with that.
 

kraktoa

Active Member
Jun 16, 2013
677
231
43
#19
Have heard talk of a solution to the wing overhang.

A airport vehicle to patrol alongside the plane until it taxies back to the stands.

Possible? been done elsewhere?
 

TheLocalYokel

Administrator
Staff member
Jan 14, 2009
12,096
5,460
343
Wurzel Country
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 #20
Have heard talk of a solution to the wing overhang.

A airport vehicle to patrol alongside the plane until it taxies back to the stands.

Possible? been done elsewhere?
I'm not competent to comment on this and I don't know if there is a precedent.

Harking back to the poster on the Dried Plum who works at BRS, he talked about the original need for turning circles that would have permitted B 787-size aircraft backtracking the runway and exiting at taxiway Charlie and Delta to the ramp.

He went on to say that it seems the turning circles are no longer required and the full length parallel taxiway could be used provided no vehicles are using the track along the inside of the boundary fence.

In one sense this goes against what you are saying but equally it may not apply to an airport safety vehicle 'escorting' the aircraft which amongst other things would ensure nothing else was using the track and that there were no other obstructions.

But I repeat I have no technical experience to say whether this sort of procedure is permissible.
 

Advertisement


Top Bottom