Longhaul from Bristol

[TheLocalYokel]

TOM long haul

Further to this and the speculation whether the axing of Sanford and Cancun next summer is commercially based or operationally based, there is a post in another forum that suggests the five former First Choice B 767-300s with fewer seats than TOM's own - the ones used at BRS - are due to be phased out by next July.

Some people believe this is the reason for the axing of the BRS routes and that when TOM has more 787s in the summer of 2015 the routes will be back.

 

[Aviador]

According to Find The Best Q & A, "The Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner needs a runway that is 4,986 ft long to takeoff at MTOW (Maximum Takeoff Weight). The 787-8 Dreamliner needs a runway that is 4,986 ft long to land at MLW (Maximum Landing Weight)"

So the Dreamliner will definitely be able to open up the long haul market from shorter runways. For a comparison purposes with the 767-300 "The Boeing 767-300ER needs a runway that is 7,900 ft long to takeoff at MTOW (Maximum Takeoff Weight). The 767-300ER needs a runway that is 5,900 ft long to land at MLW (Maximum Landing Weight)"

The Airbus A330-200 needs a runway that is 7,283 ft long to takeoff at MTOW (Maximum Takeoff Weight). The A330-200 needs a runway that is 5,741 ft long to land at MLW (Maximum Landing Weight).

 

[big g]

According to Find The Best Q & A, "The Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner needs a runway that is 4,986 ft long to takeoff at MTOW (Maximum Takeoff Weight). The 787-8 Dreamliner needs a runway that is 4,986 ft long to land at MLW (Maximum Landing Weight)"

So the Dreamliner will definitely be able to open up the long haul market from shorter runways. For a comparison purposes with the 767-300 "The Boeing 767-300ER needs a runway that is 7,900 ft long to takeoff at MTOW (Maximum Takeoff Weight). The 767-300ER needs a runway that is 5,900 ft long to land at MLW (Maximum Landing Weight)"

The Airbus A330-200 needs a runway that is 7,283 ft long to takeoff at MTOW (Maximum Takeoff Weight). The A330-200 needs a runway that is 5,741 ft long to land at MLW (Maximum Landing Weight).

Just to add to that the 737-800 needs 8,181 ft at MTOW (79,010 kg) the majority of 738's have a MTOW of 74990t what Boeing publish to what the airline used are normally a lot less, this is due to the lease company restricting it, then the airline restrict it and then the company responsible for the load control restrict it, They all want to cover their backsides!

It's interesting when you watch a 738 go out of BRS-MLA close to its MTOW then watch the 767 go direct BRS-SFB it will have it's wheels off the ground a good 150ft before and still have a good 16,000 kg of spare capacity, if you get to see the 767 go out empty it's like a rocket!

The 787 will be a good fit at BRS and can't wait to see how quickly that gets off the ground.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

It's interesting when you watch a 738 go out of BRS-MLA close to its MTOW then watch the 767 go direct BRS-SFB it will have it's wheels off the ground a good 150ft before and still have a good 16,000 kg of spare capacity, if you get to see the 767 go out empty it's like a rocket!

I'm assuming that the Ryanair B 738s that go to Tenerife, Lanzarote and Gran Canaria are even heavier (with more fuel) than the FR Malta flights, given that all four routes operate with very high load factors.

 

[big g]

I'm assuming that the Ryanair B 738s that go to Tenerife, Lanzarote and Gran Canaria are even heavier (with more fuel) than the FR Malta flights, given that all four routes operate with very high load factors.

The MLA tends to be more bag heavy, but they usually are with in a couple of tones of one another.

For me I find it hard when I see people bang on about how unsafe it is operating the 767 in/out of BRS, when you see the hard facts the aircraft is well within its limits. I'm well aware of the AAIB report and the changes recommended and have been adopted but that incident could have happened to any aircraft, but it happened to the biggest aircraft to operate in to BRS and to the most common aircraft that suffers damage on a nose wheel landing.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

The MLA tends to be more bag heavy, but they usually are with in a couple of tones of one another.

For me I find it hard when I see people bang on about how unsafe it is operating the 767 in/out of BRS, when you see the hard facts the aircraft is well within its limits. I'm well aware of the AAIB report and the changes recommended and have been adopted but that incident could have happened to any aircraft, but it happened to the biggest aircraft to operate in to BRS and to the most common aircraft that suffers damage on a nose wheel landing.

Thanks again, big g.

For anyone interested who has not read it the AAIB report of the Thomson Boeing 767 incident at BRS in October 2010 can be accessed at this link.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cf ... 005-12.pdf

As is often the case with accidents, whether road, rail, sea or air, there is not one single cause but a number that taken together lead to the incident.

In this case for example:

The weather experienced on approach to BRS turned out to be significantly worse than that forecast at the Cancun briefing prior to the flight.

The pilots were not BRS-based and operated into BRS no more than about twice a year with no regular or recent experience of runway 09.

US authorities were aware of similar de-rotation incidents with the Boeing 767 and had recommended discussion of same in pilot training programmes but the crew of this aircraft had not received it.

Boeing had produced a video dealing with hard nose gear touchdowns but neither the pilots involved in this incident nor the airline were aware of the video.

The investigators established that the inertia reels of the pilot's shoulder harnesses had not been locked as to do so meant that some controls were out of reach from one or both pilots' seats and that this crew and other company pilots seldom locked them. The report concluded that if the shoulder harnesses had been locked it's possible that the degree to which the pilots were thrown forward would have been reduced and in the captain's case any consequent movement of the control column lessened.

No action had been taken following the 'unusually high rate of hard landings by Boeing 767 aircraft on runway 09' to establish a threshold value beyond which safety action might have been taken to reduce the rate or stop operations of the type on this runway.


Previous hard landings elsewhere had produced the same sort of damage found on this aircraft which itself had been subject to a previous hard landing in which it sustained damage (repaired by Boeing) when owned by another carrier, although the AAIB report considers this had no bearing on the BRS incident.

Clearly the AAIB report considers runway 09 a factor in the incident but there is no recommendation that the type should be barred from using it, only the recommendation that operators should be aware of the benefits of analysing recorded flight data not only by airport but also by runway.

I presume that Thomson has been doing this since the recommendation and the operator has continued to operate the 767 into BRS since the 2010 incident.

 

[alphagolf]

With Octobers CAA Stats in, it is interesting to see that both of Bristol's Long-haul routes broke through the 10,000 pax barrier for the season.

May to October:-

Sanford 10,671, (9,881 in 2012)
Cancun 10,014, (9,084 in 2012)

Hopefully a return in 2015, will see this go from strength to strength.

alphagolf

 

[Aviador]

Hi alphagolf

Assuming Thomson do return, what's the difference in capacity between the Thomson Dreamliner and the Thomson 767-300? Are those figures likely to be surpassed?

 

[alphagolf]

Hi alphagolf

Assuming Thomson do return, what's the difference in capacity between the Thomson Dreamliner and the Thomson 767-300? Are those figures likely to be surpassed?

Thomson used the ex First Choice 767-300 from Bristol with 258 seats.

Thomson's 787-8 seat 291, so yes if indeed they do return in 2015, we would see an increase in capacity.

 

[big g]

Thomson have also ordered 2 more 787's for delivery in 2016, I think we will see a return in 2015 of long haul.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Thomson have also ordered 2 more 787's for delivery in 2016, I think we will see a return in 2015 of long haul.

You have a good record for accuracy with your BRS predictions, big g. Let's hope you're right again.

 

[tpm]

In the Jan 29 minutes of the airport consultative committee there's a remark that "Efforts were being a made to establish a transatlantic flight". Now I'm sure that's always been true since the Continental link to Newark ceased to operate, but one can't help but wonder why it was mentioned now: was it because there's a tangible possibility that's being worked on, or just because a member asked about it?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

In the Jan 29 minutes of the airport consultative committee there's a remark that "Efforts were being a made to establish a transatlantic flight". Now I'm sure that's always been true since the Continental link to Newark ceased to operate, but one can't help but wonder why it was mentioned now: was it because there's a tangible possibility that's being worked on, or just because a member asked about it?

I noted that too but didn't attach much significance to the remark, especially in view of the CEO being quoted in the local press last year saying that the airport continues to look for a transatlantic partner but didn't expect anything to happen for quite a while.

The cessation of the CO EWR service in autumn 2010 after five and a half years of operation was reportedly put down to a combination of the recession, APD and insufficient full fare-paying passengers in business-first.

APD is still with us and although the economy is supposed to be improving carriers will need to be convinced that a yield exists to justify a service. Before the service commenced in May 2005 CO publicly stated that their passenger target for the first year was 80,000. That was met and in 2007 over 93,000 used the route. However, as the recession began to bite 2009's total dropped to 83,000.

I believe that as soon as CO gained access to LHR the BRS route was on borrowed time. LGW-EWR was switched to LHR well before BRS was effectively switched to LHR too. Unless the BRS route brought in exceptional returns what would have been the point to an airline of running a 4 x daily service to EWR from one of the world's major airports together with an additional daily rotation from a smallish airport one hundred miles away? CO bowed to the inevitable in my view and LHR became 5 x daily with BRS a big round zero. BFS-EWR would have gone too had not the Chancellor reduced the long haul APD rates in Northern Ireland so that BFS could more easily compete with DUB.

I think that a Middle East link is of more importance than one to New York and possibly more attainable.

Anyway this is just my view. I'd love to hear the opinions of others on this.

 

[Ray Finkle]

I'm inclined to agree and posted my opinion not too long ago about BHX's weak offering to the USA being largely down to it's proximity with LHR and the sheer number of flights, frequencies and destinations available, I'm sure being a similar distance from London BRS has the same problem. Cost also seems to be an issue, I don't know what prices were like on BRS-EWR but BHX-EWR can be very expensive at times, so much so that often even with associated travel and accommodation costs LHR can be significantly cheaper.

I think that a Middle East link is of more importance than one to New York and possibly more attainable.

I agree, Turkish would be the obvious one and could do very well at BRS.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Thanks for that, Ray.

I never used the BRS-EWR link but I seem to remember that fares were probably higher than those from LHR.

At the time of the BRS-EWR service my son was working for a major US financial group and was of a seniority that allowed him premium cabin travel. He flew the Atlantic frequently and found the EWR link helpful as he was based in the West Country and it meant he had no road or rail journey home from London after an overnight eastbound flight.

EWR was fine for the New York area and some more distant cities could be reached with minimal stopover time although a late arriving aircraft from BRS could throw plans into disarray.

So at times he still used LHR where there were direct, non-stop flights to many US destinations that made more efficient use of his time than transiting through EWR.

He's not interested in aviation other than as a means to get from one point to another but spoke well of CO's b-f product, although he was contemptuous of their so-called first-class product on US domestic flights which he described as not as good as economy on most airlines a few years ago, and that applied to other US carriers on domestic services as well.

On one trip in b-f on BRS-EWR there were only a couple of fare-paying passengers in the 16-seat cabin with the rest upgrades from economy, most of whom seemed to know each other. He struck up a conversation with one man who said he was the brother of the captain and the others seemed to be family members or friends as well. If there was a lot of that going on it's perhaps not surprising the route struggled to make sufficient money.

 

[ljm104]

I think that a Middle East link is of more importance than one to New York and possibly more attainable

The topic of longhaul from Bristol is, to me, one of the most interesting. I find the trip east to LHR, or worse LGW, to be a real pain but often find KLM/Air France prices uncompetitive. My view is that hope for BRS longhaul comes from the MEB3, particularly Emirates and Qatar, both of which have substantial orders for 787s/A350s. As numbers of these increase over the next few years BRS may finally be able to overcome the operational difficulties of it's short runway in a way that is commercially acceptable to airlines.

As you have mentioned before TheLocalYokel, BRS offers very little in the way of cargo opportunities, which we know is a key part of Emirates route profitability. This begs the question, why does BRS have such a limited cargo operation? With Avonmouth being one of the most important ports in the UK, one might imagine that the south west has considerable untapped airfreight potential? Poor surface access may partly explain this, but not completely.

 

[Aviador]

From an operational perspective the A350 is proving a headache for smaller airports with the majority of airlines so far opting for the longer variant over the standard length aircraft. This isn't good news for smaller airports because the longer variant doesn't offer the same operation flexibility from shorter runways is the shorter standard version.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

That's certainly an important point, Aviador.

Another is something mentioned in the heavyweight Sunday press this weekend where it was said that the major political parties are likely to offer Scotland much greater taxation powers if they say no to independence. APD would be one of the powers devolved.

If that occurs then it's almost certain that Wales could not be denied the same right which could have an adverse effect on BRS, especially for long haul.

The Wales Government would reduce APD dramatically, probably to a nil rate, which would be an irresistible attraction to a company looking at long haul charter to Florida or Mexico or the West Indies for example. A nil rate of APD at CWL would save a family of four nearly £300 on such journeys. An airline could even increase its own fares a bit knowing the overall sum would still be considerably less than that possible from England. Furthermore, with lower overall fares more passengers would be attracted.

CWL would then become more likely to win out over BRS if one of the MEB3 or even Turkish (reputedly already interested in BRS) looked seriously at Severnside. Business class passengers would save even more if APD was nil - £138 per person from 1 April.

The perverse thing is that if Scotland and Wales are allowed to set their own APD rates (in CWL's case the airport owner would be setting its own rates), English rates will still be set by the UK government with MPs from all countries of the UK having a say on something that is purely English (the West Lothian question) and with a chancellor of the exchequer possibly representing a Welsh or Scottish constituency (there are recent precedents with Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling).

Taking up ljm's point regarding BRS's poor cargo output, I can only think that it's because the airport is situated in the green belt which limits the non-aviation buildings such as warehouses that can be constructed.

Incidentally, talking of Avonmouth Docks, and the Port of Bristol generally, its remarkable turnaround since transferring from council into private hands (on a lease into the 22nd Century) has almost coincided with BRS's similar transformation since becoming privately owned. Both Avonmouth and Royal Portbury Docks have their own direct connections onto the M5. What wouldn't BRS give for such a link?

It's somewhat ironic that CWL has had to return to public ownership even to survive (which is what Wales's First Minister suggested) and may now benefit further from the public purse if APD is devolved.

It has to make BRS's overseas investors wonder a bit.

 

[superking]

a very good and true to the point localyokal. one point i must make is if scotland had there apd lowered or taken away and wales as well then brs and all the local airports would loose out not only longhaul but shorthaul as well.
i am sure nothern ireland had there long haul reduced or removed. that was pressure from co/ua or they would have been off.
times in the not to distant future will be intereasting to say the least

 

[kraktoa]

The impetus for a middle east route will inevitably come when the demographic of the west reaches a stage where the recent arrivals (asylum cases from Sudan, Eritrea, Somalia, etc) have lived in the UK for a sufficient time to attain British passports. The surge was in mid 2000 and i guess the disapora will be sufficiently settled in Uk by now to afford the flights back to their homelands.

Not intending an immigration debate, but i guess they will be the ones who will fuel the demand for middle east flights. Qatar and Emirates will soon take notice as that demographic of passengers will be supplemented by the Dubai shopping travellers.