Longhaul from Bristol

[superking]

Gooluck to ncl for getting the united service.Been trying to work out many things with what has happened with brs and many routes lost and many routes we do not have.
ppl say runway too short,other ppl say heathrow too close.
If you look at the airports in the midlands there is not a lot of difference to lhw than brs,yet they can sustain long haul and even increase services, with also manchester going north which has a fair bit of long haul.
Is the airlines reluctant to use brs for what ever or is brs management not doing enough,even airports across the whole of the uk are getting up grades of services weather it be long haul or short haul.
there is so many questions with no proper answers,as a lot of answers are cheap and in my mind never answered with honesty.
know we coming out of recession and one of the worst we have had, but my mind tells me brs is not up to speed in exploring routes etc.
many questions no answers. are brs trying to get terminat expansion done first.If they hanging on for that then they will miss the boat,also same could be said about the hotel. how many years has that saga been going on.
its not as thou we are not in the right catchment area either.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

The runway and physical size of the airport would almost certainly be a bar if an airline was thinking of operating a B 777 into BRS - say Emirates to Dubai.

The B 787 and the A 350 were thought to be the future of long haul at BRS: aircraft not too large in terms of seats but large enough and capable (certainly according to Boeing when the 787 was in the early stages of production) of operating non-stop to such places as the west coast of the USA and Cape Town from the existing runway without load penalty.

TUI then pulled its Florida and Mexico weekly charters this summer presumably because the former First Choice B 767s that operated the routes were being retired during the season, and the Cancun had to make a fuel stop at MAN outbound anyway. However, the fact that the routes are not apparently being restarted next summer with the 787, despite Chris Browne the Thomson MD saying in 2010 that BRS would be one of the first airports to see the type in regular service, has led some to wonder whether the reason is operational rather than commercial.

If the former then it would be a serious blow to the airport's future long haul aspirations. The airbridge was not included with the central walkway completed this summer although the airport says that it will be provided if long haul flights begin.

As to the present, the new transatlantic routes from BHX and NCL are being operated with B 757-200s so that would not have put BRS out of the game as the CO flew non-stop to EWR for five and a half years without, so far as I know, having to stop en route to take on fuel at any time.

The West Midlands catchment is much larger than BRS's even taking into account South Wales and the far South West so that it is ahead of BRS is no surprise at all and almost certainly would be even if BRS had a longer runway.

NCL might be considered more surprising and BRS might have thought it stood a slightly better chance of getting such a service than NCL but we are not privy to the detailed negotiations and what, if anything, swung the balance towards NCL. Recent persuasive rumours suggest that BRS was very very close to getting a NYC from next summer, and the only likely airlines would have been United and American.

It may be that United thought that its absorbed partner Continental had tried BRS and although passengers numbers were satisfactory (based on CO's publicly stated projections before the route started), at least until the recession began to bite, the yield apparently was not. Also bear in mind that when CO started BRS-EWR they had no access to LHR. When they did they quickly axed their LGW-EWR route and it was surely only a matter of time before they moved their single daily BRS-EWR along the M4 to join their 4 x daily LHR-EWR.

American probably believed that BHX with its larger catchment, even though it already had a daily United to EWR, was a better bet.

I have no doubt that the BRS management has been working its socks off to get transatlantic and other routes. The routes team is extremely well led with a man at the helm who knows the local and national aviation scene inside out. He's worked at the airport for over a quarter of a century and is extremely able and highly regarded in the industry.

The routes that have been lost, and every airport loses routes, is mainly down to the fact that people haven't used them in sufficient numbers with the EWR a classic example so far as the business community is concerned. Despite clamouring for a NYC route for years, and they still clamour, they simply did not put enough bodies in business/first. If they had the route would have stood a better chance of surviving. This might still weigh on the minds of potential airlines. LHR seems the default long haul airport for the prosperous Greater Bristol business community.

 

[superking]

flew brs/ewr many times. got diverted to albany once,b4 we took off again we had to upload fuel to get to ewr,i thought how tight that was on fuel.
as far as i know it stopped off once in bangor maine for a splash and dash.
how ironic a new route to gib announced, think someone read my mind.think i ought to post like that more often.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

how ironic a new route to gib announced, think someone read my mind.think i ought to post like that more often.

We had a strong hint on the BRS forum a week or two ago that there was something coming from easyJet. I wonder if there is more to come.

Thanks for the information re en route refuelling on the BRS-EWR.

 

[Ray Finkle]

LHR seems the default long haul airport for the prosperous Greater Bristol business community.

There was a conversation on the BHX forum recently and it appears BRS suffers in a similar way with it's proximity to LHR. The sheer amount of daily flights (especially to the US) and the generally cheaper fares make it very difficult for a 5-7x weekly regional service to survive, and convincing people they should pay more and adjust their plans to suit the airlines limited schedule simply to support their local airport is a very difficult thing to do.

That said it must be hard to see NCL secure a NYC service, especially seeing as BRS had a successful one for many years. I don't know how close BRS were but I hope they don't give up and hopefully there will be some good news soon, even if it's seasonal to begin with.

Is there any news on a potential service going East? Turkish have been mentioned which could be perfect for BRS? If the 787 couldn't manage 9-10 hours to the likes of Florida or Mexico from BRS could it cope with Doha or Abu Dhabi which is a couple of hours less flying time?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Not sure at this point whether the B787 (at least the 800 series) can operate out of BRS. One of the sticking points was said to be the need to have to backtrack the runway as the wings would overhang the public fence of the full length parallel taxiway, although some months ago this problem was reported to be overcome but I can't vouch for the provenance of this information.

The former First Choice B 767s (270 seats) of TUI could fly non-stop to Florida, unless the weather was exceptionally adverse which I don't think occurred very often - the Cancun needed a fuel stop outbound at MAN.

It was never made clear whether the axing of TUI's Florida and Cancun flights was commercially or operationally based. It was merely said at the time that a change of aircraft type was the reason.

As for the Middle East I really don't know whether any airline would consider an aircraft of the size of the B 787 or A350 on commercial grounds, let alone operational (if that is a bar but I have no idea whether it is) hence the talk some months ago (fuelled by a certain Simon Calder in a newspaper article at the time) that BRS was thought to be the next UK airport in line for a Turkish Airlines service to Istanbul. Whether the Turkish possibility is still a serious contender I don't know.

I can guarantee that the BRS management won't give up on trying to get a transatlantic scheduled service but how long that will take is anyone's guess. Realistically one might think it's at least a couple of years away but who would have put money on the sudden NCL announcement?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

The minutes of the last airport consultative committee meeting (on 5 November) have now been published.

They show that members stated their disappointment at the inability to obtain a direct American route but it was pointed out that connections can be made through Amsterdam, Brussels and Dublin.

So it looks as though we shall have to wait a while for a NYC route.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Thomson long haul

Reported today that next winter the cruise flights to the West Indies from CWL will be B 787 operated. Previously they've been on the B 767.

Now CWL has perhaps surprisingly always done better than BRS on transatlantic cruise flights in terms of the number flown each winter. This may have been partly due to the fact that the occasional West Indies cruise flights from BRS may have needed an en route fuel stop or it may be that for once this particular market is stronger at CWL than at BRS.

If the equipment was the reason then the fact that the B 787 is now available and not being used next winter at BRS may point to the fact that operational difficulties remain.

If that is the case then the chance of getting the summer Cancun and Sanford back may be remote and the once hoped for 787 (not just with TOM) as the salvation of BRS's long haul might have to be consigned to the history books.

 

[kraktoa]

Did we establish if the Dreamliner could land and takeoff from BRS? There were always doubts due to wingspan and runway lengths and never got a definitive answer.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Did we establish if the Dreamliner could land and takeoff from BRS? There were always doubts due to wingspan and runway lengths and never got a definitive answer.

I don't think we did get a definitive answer.

The BRS master plan assumes that anything larger than a B 767 cannot use the full length parallel taxiway because the wings would overhang the boundary fence next to a public road. The master plan determined that initially this could be overcome with the provision of turning circles and backtracking along the runway.

Thomson must have known this in 2010 when their MD said that BRS would be amongst the first group of airport to see the 787 in service.

It was later suggested by a poster in this forum that the 787 could after all use the parallel taxiway.

As for runway length the master plan states clearly that the airport was told by Boeing that the 787 would be able operate long haul non stop without load penalty as far as the west coast of the USA from the existing runway. I presumed this referred to the 800 series which TOM operates. This was around ten years ago when the master plan was produced following the government white paper of 2003.

I was not surprised when TOM didn't include BRS when it first put the 787 into service because they may have wanted airports with decent runway lengths whilst their crews became experienced with the type. The fact that BRS continues to be ignored suggests that there is either a commercial or operational imperative that prevents such operations.

If it's operational it may be that the take-off performance is not what Boeing suggested it would be or could it be that the AAIB investigation branch report on the TOM B767 heavy ending that caused substantial airfare damage has played a part? The report suggested that the number of heavy landings on runway 09 with the B 767 was well above what might be thought to be a reasonable figure. If this is the case it might be that the airline doesn't want to take a chancee on the 787 being vulnerable in this way.

In the absence a definitive statement from airport or airline this sort of speculation is inevitable among those of us who have an interest in the subject.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Did we establish if the Dreamliner could land and takeoff from BRS? There were always doubts due to wingspan and runway lengths and never got a definitive answer.

I don't think we did get a definitive answer.

The BRS master plan assumes that anything larger than a B 767 cannot use the full length parallel taxiway because the wings would overhang the boundary fence next to a public road. The master plan determined that initially this could be overcome with the provision of turning circles and backtracking along the runway.

Thomson must have known this in 2010 when their MD said that BRS would be amongst the first group of airport to see the 787 in service.

It was later suggested by a poster in this forum that the 787 could after all use the parallel taxiway.

As for runway length the master plan states clearly that the airport was told by Boeing that the 787 would be able operate long haul non stop without load penalty as far as the west coast of the USA from the existing runway. I presumed this referred to the 800 series which TOM operates. This was around ten years ago when the master plan was produced following the government white paper of 2003.

I was not surprised when TOM didn't include BRS when it first put the 787 into service because they may have wanted airports with decent runway lengths whilst their crews became experienced with the type. The fact that BRS continues to be ignored suggests that there is either a commercial or operational imperative that prevents such operations.

If it's operational it may be that the take-off performance is not what Boeing suggested it would be or could it be that the AAIB report on the TOM B767 heavy ending that caused substantial airfare damage has played a part? The report suggested that the number of heavy landings on runway 09 with the B 767 was well above what might be thought to be a reasonable figure. If this is the case it might be that the airline doesn't want to take a chancee on the 787 being vulnerable in this way.

In the absence a definitive statement from airport or airline this sort of speculation is inevitable among those of us who have an interest in the subject.

 

[Ray Finkle]

From what I have read it seems some of the earlier built 787's came out quite considerably overweight which would obviously affect their performance. I have no idea if the Thomson 787's suffer this issue but if they do then it could possibly be one of the reasons why the BRS long haul programme hasn't returned as yet?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Yes, I'd read that too about the early 787s being overweight. Being entirely a layman in these things I could never understand why calculations could be so way out - I understand it's not uncommon with new aircraft types.

At BRS it might still be purely a commercial decision with TOM not to operate the transatlantic charters again.

 

[forest1979]

Interesting read as always on this subject… I personally would like to see long haul routes from Bristol however, in reality I think Bristol will continue to expand as a regional airport albeit with an extensive short hall route network and be known for that…
The decision not to include a runway extension in the master plan might after all be the key piece that will prevent Bristol fulfilling any ambitions of offering its customer base the choice to travel further afield from around the corner… I find it frustrating as it seems obvious to me (even if it might have been challenging to pass), more so as Birmingham has done exactly that to grow its long haul potential.…. I’m not qualified enough to comment on the operational performance of either the 787 or A350 so I will just surmise that the airlines simply don’t think it worth their while committing these types of aircraft to the operational restrictions Bristol throws at them…

As for Thomson, think it has been said on here already but I think CWL has the pull for them in terms of long haul for the west of England. I think we will see this happen there.

I do hold hope that BRS will not give up on the NYC ambition and I do think that will happen.. The US carriers have the type of equipment that suit BRS (757) and can’t see these being phased out that quickly… In addition maybe for the middle east and onwards, Turkish is the one to follow up on. It was muted but nothing seems to have come of it. Their operation looks to be more suited to Bristol.
If it is to be shortfall then I hope, again in time, the mix of airlines starts to increase with maybe a few more full service airlines added to feed other hub airports around Europe.. There is no doubt that Easy will continue to expand and become more dominant but as I have mentioned before I’m not sold on that being a good thing in the long run…

Anyhow, those are my thoughts for now… I’m sure this will rumble on for some time.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

CWL was the main transatlantic charter airport for Severnside for many years until First Choice became part of TUI around seven years ago. First Choice had started some transatlantic summer charters from BRS a year or two before the merger operating against TOM from CWL.

When the two companies joined together the CWL flights were fairly quickly discontinued leaving the former First Choice routes from BRS the only offering from Severnside. Reasons given by people on websites included a better yield from BRS and the fact that former First Choice personnel remained in senior positions of influence. I don't know the reason(s).

If TUI doesn't want to fly 787s out of BRS then I agree that CWL will be the only game in town for this type of holiday flight, always assuming that TUI sees a market in Severnside at all.

I echo your sentiments about becoming too reliant on one airline despite everything that easyJet has brought to BRS but it may not be possible to rectify this situation much if easyJet continues to build as seems very likely.

NYC might not be lost for ever. It really depends on how the economic situation continues to play out and whether airlines want to fly more from LHR but can't because of space. BRS showed with CO that it could muster the bodies but not the yield.

Yes, Turkish does seem much more likely than one of the MEB3 (Emirates, Etihad and Qatar) if some sort of hub connection to the east is to be established.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I am surprised that the BRS team didn't pick up on the fact that a runway extension was probably needed. I always suspected that long haul routes would never really be viable form the current runway length. It's a shame especially considering that if BRS had gone ahead with a runway extension it could have been completed before Birmingham due to the fact that all you would have to build it on would be part of the common. Perhaps BRS could have competed with Birmingham, we will never know (although it is unlikely due to the poor road access to BRS).

The airport's master plan went into considerable detail over the pros and cons of a runway extension. They cited five options from 'do nothing' to an extension in excess of 400 metres and discussed each option's advantages and disadvantages.

Like a number of UK airports BRS is in entirely the wrong location, not only in terms of access but of the immediate area in which it sits. Any runway extension could only be made realistically at the eastern end. The topography to the west with the falling ground would necessitate an inordinate amount of earth moving or a runway on 'stilts'. The snag with the eastern end is that the extension would encroach onto Felton Common which has been designated a Local Nature Reserve by the local authority and a full runway extension would require a complete occupation of much of the common.

The master plan also suggests that probably only about four long haul scheduled routes would be viable in the period under review (until 2030) which they list as New York, Washington, Dubai and possibly Atlanta.

The airport's overall conclusion was '......that the improvement in performance that might be achieved by extending the runway is relatively small in comparison with the costs and potential environmental impact.'

However, the issue would be kept under review in future master plans.

With hindsight and assuming a workable accommodation could have been achieved with that airfield's owners a move to Filton would have been infinitely better when the city council closed its Whitchurch airport in 1957 and moved to Lulsgate. However, in the 1950s there was not and could not have reasonably been expected any inkling as to how airports would develop 50 years into the future. Even in 1993 Les Wilson, Mr Bristol Airport to the core, was only talking of 2 mppa in 2003.

The other snag with developing BRS is that it's within a Green Belt which means ancillary infrastructure such as warehousing and distribution centres would be next to impossible to build if the airport wanted to become a rounded facility with significant cargo business.

BRS has done incredibly well, or rather its management, owners and staff have, in the face of numerous physical obstacles and one can wonder how busy it would now be if it was better sited and larger physically. But that would apply to other airports such as LBA. We are where we are and have to make the best of what there is.

The 787 might yet come to the rescue of the long haul market.

 

[forest1979]

Interesting piece in the Western daily press today on the A350. It quoted..

"Until now Bristol Airport has been hamstrung by the size of its runway but that is all about to change with the launch of the new plane.

Unlike long-haul giants like the Boeing 747 and Airbus A380, the A350 would be able to use Bristol Airport and would have the ability to reach destinations as far as away as America, the Far East and parts of Africa. Many experts are predicting that the technology will change the face of the industry and will put carbon fibre technology at the centre of the industry."

This piece is related to Qatar being the launch customer.. I did get a little excited thinking they were coming to Bristol!

Maybe there is a future?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Interesting piece in the Western daily press today on the A350. It quoted..

"Until now Bristol Airport has been hamstrung by the size of its runway but that is all about to change with the launch of the new plane.

Unlike long-haul giants like the Boeing 747 and Airbus A380, the A350 would be able to use Bristol Airport and would have the ability to reach destinations as far as away as America, the Far East and parts of Africa. Many experts are predicting that the technology will change the face of the industry and will put carbon fibre technology at the centre of the industry."

This piece is related to Qatar being the launch customer.. I did get a little excited thinking they were coming to Bristol!

Maybe there is a future?

Here's the link.

http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/New- ... story.html

The headline and picture does give an instant impression that the 350 is about to make its debut at BRS which, I suppose, is the newspaper's intention to try to get readers to look at the article.

I don't know whether this really takes us any further forward or not. The article says nothing that hasn't been around for several years in that it's been said the B 787 and A 350 would remove the physical obstacle of a short runway at airports encumbered in this way.

Thus far the 787-800 has not appeared at BRS with the possible reasons discussed in previous posts within this thread. Whether the 350 is different in some way and whether an airline (or even airlines) that will possess such aircraft will be interested in BRS remains to be seen.

It would be good if operational impediments could be removed leaving the airport free to concentrate solely on the commercial aspect of attracting long haul flights.

 

[kraktoa]

Very strong rumours that Etihad are coming to Bristol. Anyone hear these rumours?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Very strong rumours that Etihad are coming to Bristol. Anyone hear these rumours?

I must say it doesn't sound very likely if I'm honest. I've heard no rumours.

I don't know which aircraft type they could operate into BRS. They appear to be taking deliveries of some A 350-900s this year but I don't know whether they could operate from the BRS runway with a full load on a seven-hour flight.

Etihad Regional (Darwin) seems to be downsizing at present. I don't know whether they operate feeder fights from smaller airports in Europe to Etihad main airports in Europe.