Longhaul from Bristol

[Ray Finkle]

I haven't read the earlier posts but I will do now. I think the Bristol area is definitely a focus for services from BHX with the obvious being Emirates extending their chauffeur drive service beyond the usual range to cover Bristol post codes. I'm sure others will look to the same markets.

That said Bristol has a solid track record of services from Continental/United and if it hadn't been for the massive lure of LHR I think it would still be there today. Eastbound traffic is getting ever more popular so I think it's only a matter of time before Bristol gets a piece of the pie.

The Norwegian CEO has said several times that the MAX will be used to serve smaller airports on both sides of the Atlantic. New York, Boston and Baltimore have all been mentioned as possible focus cities in the USA. I'm hoping for a service or two to BHX but I think BRS could also be a perfect fit on routes where a 787 may be too large (I'm thinking in terms of the inevitable end of the 757 and 767).

I don't know who are in Bristols sights but Icelandair could be an excellent addition. They have a growing network across North America and have the advantage of free stopovers in Iceland. They also have the 737MAX on order. Going East I seem to remember Etihad were rumoured, assuming the 787 can operate from BRS (Abu Dhabi isn't too far) then they could be perfect? Failing that I can see Turkish Airlines expanding even quicker than they are now when the new Istanbul airport opens, I think the first phase is due in 2017?

If Newcastle can sustain even a seasonal flight to NYC then BRS should have no problems and it's worth noting that United Airlines will also start receiving the MAX in 2018.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I think the Bristol area is definitely a focus for services from BHX with the obvious being Emirates extending their chauffeur drive service beyond the usual range to cover Bristol post codes.

I'm not sure that they still do this for BHX. The complimentary limit now seems to be within a 70 mile radius of the UK airport in question for both first and business class passengers, although uniquely GLA has a 150 mile radius from there for first class passengers with 70 for business class. It's possible to pay a top-up to extend the range.

Whilst on this subject Etihad provides complimentary chauffeur service for first and business class passengers for 100 driven miles from LHR and MAN but 70 driven miles from EDI. Qatar has no chauffeur service.

So returning to BRS and EK, it's possible that some in the Greater Bristol area would be within the 70 mile radius of BHX and the top-up for many of the others might not be too much of a consideration taken as a proportion of the entire fare.

 

[Ray Finkle]

Thanks, I believe it used to cover all Bristol postcodes but may well have changed.

Having read through the posts I can admit that I am very envious of Bristols Easyjet base, I'd love three aircraft at BHX let alone twelve. We're finally getting our coverage of Europe back to where it should be but Bristol has some great coverage and some fantastic niche routes, such as Bilbao, which I can't ever see becoming available at BHX.

I think it's right to say that many regional airports would give their right arm to be where Bristol is now. I think a long haul route can't be too far away?

 

[Aviador]

I suspect there will be numerous regional airports chasing flights to the States and Canada with Icelandair. WOW also offers low cost flights to America via Iceland so they might be an option too. I think this is probably the way forward for regional airports as the direct option has always proved very difficult to establish. The link to Iceland will also provide an important additional destination frequented by sightseers in particular.

 

[forest1979]

I suspect there will be numerous regional airports chasing flights to the States and Canada with Icelandair. WOW also offers low cost flights to America via Iceland so they might be an option too. I think this is probably the way forward for regional airports as the direct option has always proved very difficult to establish. The link to Iceland will also provide an important additional destination frequented by sightseers in particular.

I mentioned on here previously about Icelandair and maybe this being an opportunity to fill the void if Easy do not bring back Reykjavík and the onwards connections to the states. They have expanded well into the UK market of late and certainly the 757's they operate shouldn't have any issue with Bristol.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

All good and hopefully relevant (to BRS) points about airlines other than the 'traditional' transatlantic carriers.

We're finally getting our coverage of Europe back to where it should be but Bristol has some great coverage and some fantastic niche routes, such as Bilbao, which I can't ever see becoming available at BHX.

Bilbao was brought back by easyJet earlier this year (having been axed in 2004 after it was one of the early BRS routes following their purchase of GO Fly) at 2 x weekly and it was said it would be a year-round route. However, it's been discontinued for the coming winter but returns at the beginning of June next year, still at 2 x weekly. The summer loads weren't that bad: from May to September respectively 77%, 86.5%, 92.6%, 93.6%, 87.1%. It seems that easyJet believe's it's a peak summer route only from their actions.

 

[ljm104]

As the years have gone by I've become increasingly convinced that Bristol's lack of long haul really is due to the operational constraints of a short runway. I think it is quite telling that Thomson have not chosen Bristol for their 787 services given they operate the aircraft out of Newcastle and East midlands, both of which would seem to be a worse commercial proposition than Bristol.

With the exception of east coast transatlantic 757/767 services its hard to see other aircraft operating off the BRS runway. I'm no expert, but I don't think the 737 Max would be able to get off BRS runway at maximum takeoff weight. I believe the same is true for the A321neo.

The best hope lies in a renewed 757 service with United, which BRS can surely support commercially. An eastern proposition is more difficult. Emirates are the most adventurous with their route network, serving regional airports more readily than the likes of Qatar or Etihad. Unfortunately their large widebody fleet strategy makes Bristol an unlikely choice. Perhaps a Qatar 787 is the best hope from the MEB3.

A rather gloomy assessment of the long haul situation, but I hope I am proved wrong! Really would prefer to fly from BRS next time I head to the far East!

 

[TheLocalYokel]

The TOM B 787 situation has been a puzzle for a while. In 2010 the TOM MD stated categorically that BRS would be amongst the first TOM airports to see the 787 in operation. That never happened. Whether it’s a commercial decision or an operational one only the tour company and its airline will know (and perhaps the airport).

Conspiracy theorists may point to the hard landing of a TOM B 767 causing significant damage to the fuselage which occurred after the TOM MD made her statement about BRS and the B 787. The subsequent AAIB report highlighted inter alia that B 767s had experienced a disproportionately high number of hard landings on runway 09. Whether that has caused TOM to ponder whether they ought to use the 787 on this runway is pure conjecture, although it has to be said that TOM continued to use regularly their 767s for a number of years until they were withdrawn from service.

In the airport’s first master plan following the government’s 2003 white paper on the future of civil aviation in the UK the B 787 was mentioned as a ‘game changer’ (not the airport’s actual words but the gist nevertheless) with a confident Boeing prediction that it would be able to fly non stop without load penalty to the west coast of the USA from the existing runway. It may be that when the first 787s were built their performance was not quite as good as that, not that anyone seriously suggested that BRS would see regular scheduled flights to western USA (the airport certainly didn’t in its master plan).

I don’t know about the performance of the B 737 Max or the A 321 NEO when it comes to using the BRS runway. One might hope that eastern USA/Canada would be in reach.

Last year there were very strong rumours that the NYC link would be restored for this year with both American and United mentioned as carriers. We know it didn’t happen but airport senior management said they had been very close to securing a service, although the carrier was not identified. Confident comments were then made by senior management that a service in 2016 was extremely likely but, to date, we still await any news. The probable aircraft type would be the B 757-200 which may not be around for too many years so there would have to be a replacement type in mind were any airline to commence a NYC service in the next year or two.

As for the Middle East I agree that the MEB3’s larger white bodies are too big for BRS, certainly operationally and possibly commercially. Whether someone like Qatar would look to the 787 is a moot point.

Turkish to Istanbul was being touted in the travel news media last year but that’s another where rumour failed to morph into fact................as yet, anyway.

 

[Ray Finkle]

An interesting snippet from the Qatar UK manager in an article posted by nwoody on the BHX thread.

Away from London, it’s looking at serving southwest England and possibly another Scottish airport, Oliver said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... ded-to-787

 

[Marko1]

I just wish we could have a categorical answer regarding the 787/ a350 and it's use at Bristol. I can feel a route like Doha doing well from brs . Any news about the turning circles etc ?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I just wish we could have a categorical answer regarding the 787/ a350 and it's use at Bristol. I can feel a route like Doha doing well from brs . Any news about the turning circles etc ?

No, no news about turning circles that I'm aware of. My guess is that they won't appear until an aircraft wider that the B 767 is scheduled to operate regularly, especially if it's a scheduled route.

Backtracking would presumably be an initial option if an airline decided to put in a 787 or 350 at BRS.

Nothing has ever been said officially that either aircraft is not compatible with the airport operationally; it's only conjecture mainly because TOM hasn't so far put in the 787 despite promises that it would made in 2010. The airport asked for a minor alteration in its planning application consents (which was granted) to accommodate a 787 carrying more passengers than originally anticipated. That was a year or two ago.

 

[Ray Finkle]

Please forgive me as I'm not overly familiar with BRS. Is the question mark over possible 787/A350 ops to do with runway length or more to do with manoeuvring around the airfield?

For many years Thomson managed to get their 767's off Bristols runway to various long haul destinations so one would assume that with improved performance the 787 would have no issue, especially to the likes of Doha which is only around 7 hours.

From looking at Wiki the wingspan of the 763 is 47.6m, the 787-8 is 60.1m and the A350-9 is 64.75m so could the extra width be an issue? If so could there be a solution?

This was from 2010:

Aviation director Shaun Browne said: "We see the Dreamliner playing a central role in providing long-haul services from Bristol Airport in the future.

"The aircraft's improved fuel efficiency will bring south-east Asia and the west coast of the USA and beyond within reach, without the need to make major changes to airport infrastructure.

"It is the perfect example of new technology changing the game."

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Holidaymak ... story.html

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Ray

BRS has a full length parallel taxiway with a public road running parallel to that just the other side of a fence. The wings of aircraft larger than a B 767 will overhang the fence.

Around ten years ago when it published its first master plan BRS looked forward to the day when the B 787 (I'm not sure the A 350 was on the drawing board then) would revolutionise long haul air travel from the airport. Boeing had told the airport that the 787 would be able to fly non-stop from the existing runway without load penalty to such places as the west coast of the USA and Cape Town (not that anyone including the airport believed that regular scheduled services would be viable to such destinations but it was an example of the versatility expected of the type).

The master plan envisaged the use of turning circles to enable the aircraft to back track the runway. In the past I believe that Aer Lingus A 330s on rugby charters have turned to back track without turning circles.

The fact that the 787 has not yet appeared despite statements made by TOM senior management five years ago that BRS would be amongst the first airports to operate the type, and that it came to light in an AAIB report following a heavy landing of a TOM 767 causing serious fuselage damage that 767s had experienced a disproportionate number of heavy landings on runway 09, has led some to speculate that Thomson at least is reluctant to operate its 787s at BRS.

So far as I'm aware this is pure conjecture but the longer the TOM 787 fails to appear the more people will wonder.

I would say that Thomson used to operate its transatlantic long haul charters from CWL which has no runway problems of the sort I've described and the fact that no transatlantic charters have been put in there by TOM (except some cruise flights in winter) could suggest that the absence from BRS is a commercial decison rather than an operational one in that TOM may believe the commercial case is not yet there for Severnside as a whole.

 

[Ray Finkle]

Many thanks for the detailed reply :smile:

The taxi routings for the 787 are published which suggests it is at least physically possible, I guess it comes down to airline preference.

Many thanks again.

(g) B787 available taxi routes:

Departure

Runway 09: Taxiway Z to Taxiway G, enter Runway at GX.
Runway 27: Taxiway Z to Taxiway A, enter Runway at AX.

Arrival

Runway 09: Runway to vacate either BX (Taxiway B) or AX (Taxiway A) to Taxiway Z to allocated stand.
Runway 27: Runway to vacate GX, Taxiways G and Z to allocated stand.

(h) B787 aircraft will not be able to backtrack.

 

[big g]

The airfield was approved for 787 OPS last month. Here's a link with the relevant info. ]http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-69B5310658A32ABBFD398B843489A7E9/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/AIP/AD/EG_AD_2_EGGD_en_2015-10-15.pdf.

 

[ljm104]

A tantalizing snippet from Qatar indeed! Lets hope by southwest they mean BRS not CWL. With slots at heathrow so constrained it would seem BRS would make perfect sense as a way of growing their UK route network. No emirates or Etihad to compete with either, although the proximity of Birmingham may be an issue.

Good to see that from a ground OPS perspective Bristol has been cleared, although an answer to the question of payload/range restrictions on the 787 remains frustratingly elusive!

 

[big g]

Given that BRS is a non cargo station, payload for a 10hr flight will be no problem. The TOM 763 used to go out to SFB around 70% of its maximum takeoff weight.

 

[forest1979]

The airfield was approved for 787 OPS last month. Here's a link with the relevant info. ]http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-69B5310658A32ABBFD398B843489A7E9/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/AIP/AD/EG_AD_2_EGGD_en_2015-10-15.pdf.

Sounds interesting.. Are we to get a tiny bit excited??? big g, are you able to repost the link above, would be interested to read but can't seem to access..

 

[Ray Finkle]

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic ... -10-15.pdf

Scroll down to page 9, 'Ground Movement', and it gives the approved taxi routes for B787.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Given that BRS is a non cargo station, payload for a 10hr flight will be no problem. The TOM 763 used to go out to SFB around 70% of its maximum takeoff weight.

BRS-DOH is only about seven hours in duration. The BRS master plan versions (both a decade old) show B 787 performance (according to Boeing) variously as able to reach Cape Town or west coast of America from existing runway or able to fly in excess of 9,000 kilometres. BRS-DOH is less than 5,500 kilometres.

I repeat the caveat that manufacturers' early performance indicators for a new type often fall below predictions when the aircraft is put into operation and such seems to be the case with the 787. However, 9,000+ kilometres and under 5,5000 kilometres is a huge discrepancy if the 787 really would struggle to reach DOH from BRS even with a full payload.

The CAA stats for 2014 tell us that BRS had no freight or mail whatsoever (even on charter flights). CWL carried 36 tonnes on charter flights but none on scheduled flights, and 1,234 tonnes of mail which would have been on the nightly EMA-CWL-BOH Royal Mail operation which I believe may now have ceased.

The fact that BRS has no cargo operations can't be helpful for ME operators who, I understand, do carry a lot of freight on their passenger aircraft.

CAA stats show that BRS is the only airport in the top 20 measured by passenger numbers that carried no freight or mail in 2014.

Looking at the other UK airports with a Middle East link the following are freight and mail stats for 2014 although of course not all of it went to the Middle East.

Manchester: 81,334 tonnes of freight on scheduled services, 12,132 on charter; 445 tonnes of mail on scheduled, 12 on charter

Birmingham: 5,067 tonnes of freight on scheduled, 52 on charter; 24 tonnes of mail on scheduled, none on charter

Newcastle: 3,680 tonnes of freight on scheduled, 770 on charter. 4,738 tonnes of mail on charter, none on scheduled

Glasgow: 14,597 tonnes of freight on scheduled, 814 on charter. 108 tonnes of mail on scheduled, 2 on charter

Edinburgh: 207 tonnes of freight on scheduled, 19,162 on charter. 150 tonnes of mail on scheduled, 17,610 on charter