Airport Master Plan for next 30 Years - Consultation

[TheLocalYokel]

Incidentally, I noticed in a CWL thread that StopBristolAirportExpansion are flexing their environmental muscles again saying in a tweet to Qatar Airways that they "are delighted that you made the right choice of airport in this region"
TLY
I think you will find the original SBAE closed down when they lost the fight against the expansion.
I don't think you're on Twitter because the new SBAE only follow CWL Spotters and its followers are all CWL Spotters as well. I find it hard to believe any anti-airport organisation whose main argument is pollution would support any airport. I also notice they are very pro BE! I could be wrong but I reckon it could be a member of another forum just trying to make mischief.

You're right. I'm not a member of any social media group and only came across this through a link on one of the CWL threads in this forum.

SBAE was an organisation composed of disparate elements to a degree. Their main spokesman was, from memory, a leading figure in the local Friends of the Earth group which was involved with SBAE as were other bodies such as the Campaign To Protect Rural England. These groups' wider aims encompassed the more limited target of SBAE, ie preventing the expansion of one airport.

There was also an enthusiastic input from some local parish councils and individuals whose sole purpose was to prevent BRS expanding. They weren't particularly worried about what happened at other airports, although some might also have had environmental sympathies, and were essentially nimbys.

Some of the statements put out suggested that other airports were better located to take the West Country's air travellers than BRS which is located in a rural setting. I asked them once if they believed that it was better environmentally for lots of people to drive 100 miles or more to Heathrow to fly rather than driving the short distance to a local airport. I received no reply.

If the new master plan requires more land outside the current airport boundary to be taken into airport use I foresee SBAE, or something like, it rising like Phoenix from the Ashes.

Thank you for the note about SBAE's current status, or non-status, and the possibility of others now usurping SBAE's name.

 

[Severn]

The "Stop Bristol Airport Expansion" Twitter account was only set up in November 2017.

They 'follow' the Twitter accounts of Cardiff Airport, a number of other welsh airports (Swansea, Haverfordwest), all the Cardiff supporter accounts (Wales Air Forum, AirCardiff, Fly2Cardiff) as well as spotters including our very own Jerry. They also follow the accounts of other airports in the South West (BRS, SOU, EXT, NQY etc) and the major UK Airlines (flybe, easyJet, Ryanair).
This supposed SBAE account mainly reply to news affecting BRS with a very negative tone, or to CWL news with a more positive tone (like the Qatar Airways tweet spoken about already). I've listed a couple of examples below:

One tweet in response to an article posted about the long-haul prospects of CWL read "As we know BristolAirport had a United service and they failed spectacularly with it. They will never be the long haul Airport. Poundland cheap is all they are."

They then got into an argument with a BRS ramp worker regarding why Continental ended their flights from BRS tweeting "In a brief statement, Continental says, “We have regretfully taken this decision because of continuing operational losses, despite the best efforts of both Continental and Bristol airport to promote the service.” Long haul at Bristol = LOSS MAKING. Good."

Clearly whoever set up the account is a CWL supporter who has decided to make mischief. I think this was clearly illustrated when the Azerbaijan Airlines A320 landed in BRS, and not CWL they tweeted "Did they land in Bristol by mistake? Or not sure where Wales is? Didn’t they know there’s a better airport in Cardiff_Airport where the match is taking place!"

Anyway, they haven't built up much support yet, as this "fake" SBAE twitter account is only followed 7 people, mostly CWL supporters, including our very own @Jerry I noticed.... Jerry, do you know much more about this SBAE account?

 

[Jerry]

The "Stop Bristol Airport Expansion" Twitter account was only set up in November 2017.

They 'follow' the Twitter accounts of Cardiff Airport, a number of other welsh airports (Swansea, Haverfordwest), all the Cardiff supporter accounts (Wales Air Forum, AirCardiff, Fly2Cardiff) as well as spotters including our very own Jerry. They also follow the accounts of other airports in the South West (BRS, SOU, EXT, NQY etc) and the major UK Airlines (flybe, easyJet, Ryanair).
This supposed SBAE account mainly reply to news affecting BRS with a very negative tone, or to CWL news with a more positive tone (like the Qatar Airways tweet spoken about already). I've listed a couple of examples below:

One tweet in response to an article posted about the long-haul prospects of CWL read "As we know BristolAirport had a United service and they failed spectacularly with it. They will never be the long haul Airport. Poundland cheap is all they are."

They then got into an argument with a BRS ramp worker regarding why Continental ended their flights from BRS tweeting "In a brief statement, Continental says, “We have regretfully taken this decision because of continuing operational losses, despite the best efforts of both Continental and Bristol airport to promote the service.” Long haul at Bristol = LOSS MAKING. Good."

Clearly whoever set up the account is a CWL supporter who has decided to make mischief. I think this was clearly illustrated when the Azerbaijan Airlines A320 landed in BRS, and not CWL they tweeted "Did they land in Bristol by mistake? Or not sure where Wales is? Didn’t they know there’s a better airport in Cardiff_Airport where the match is taking place!"

Anyway, they haven't built up much support yet, as this "fake" SBAE twitter account is only followed 7 people, mostly CWL supporters, including our very own @Jerry I noticed.... Jerry, do you know much more about this SBAE account?

Only from what I read on it earlier on today. When i originally saw the Qatar post on Twitter and replied myself i didn't really take much notice of the it's post and then went back to have a look at it today and followed to see what it posts in the future.
It is obviously very pro CWL! I have no idea who's behind it though.
One of the replies to the account I found interesting. Do Bristolians really think of Cardiff as just a mere provincial airport? Seemed a little bit insulting that reply to me anyways.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Sounds to me as if the currency of this Twitter account is the exchange of the sort of childish remarks you might expect to encounter in a junior school playground.

Thank you for letting us know that the latest StopBristolAirportExpansion is an imposter. Although I didn't agree with the thrust of the original SBAE I at least respected that their views were genuine and sincerely held in the main.

 

[Coathanger16]

Sounds to me as if the currency of this Twitter account is the exchange of the sort of childish remarks you might expect to encounter in a junior school playground.

I'm afraid that's the issue with social media. People often end up saying things online that they would never dream of saying face to face.

In this particular case, it sounds very much like someone has a rather large axe to grind...

 

[Seasider]

One of the reasons I keep away from Social media.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

We're into the final seven days of the new master plan consultation exercise following which the airport will prepare a new draft master plan for publication in the spring which will go out to further consultation.

I know it's becoming like a stuck record but I'm increasingly mystified why a runway extension is not even being considered if the airport wants to position itself as some sort of rounded regional airport, even if only a smallish one in the grand scheme of things, although the 20 mppa that it is talking about would take it towards being a middle-size airport.

It's probable that a wide-ranging short-haul portfolio would make the owners as much money as introducing a serious long-haul element as the cost of a runway extension would have to be factored in and 100 long-haul passengers might not bring in any more airport revenue than 100 short-haul. Perhaps that is more of a consideration for the owners than any thoughts of what some might consider 'vanity projects' that might not be value for money, given the likely substantial outlay that would be required.

I read this week on a website called Aviation Wales, admittedly a website that is a cheerleader for CWL and Welsh aviation in general but it's still a serious website, that it has learned that the Welsh Government and CWL 'are trying to woo at least one transatlantic airline as well as a second carrier from the Middle East'.

Obviously we don't know the strength of the information and whilst I can understand the transatlantic part I find the ME suggestion eyebrow-raising to say the least. Although a second ME carrier would almost certainly be overkill, that they are looking at all suggests that the CWL and WG people think they have a better chance of landing a second ME than BRS has of getting its first. It's difficult to see a commercial rationale in this so, if it is true, it must come down to operational exigencies. We don't know why Qatar chose CWL and we don't know if they told CWL in detail why they chose them but if they did, and the decision involved BRS operational capability, that would have given CWL and the WG confidence that if a second ME3 was interested in Severnside they would be the likely choice.

Some of this might be no more than a hypothesis, but when I suggested to a senior BRS manager at a recent consultation drop-in that, with TUI operating the 787 to Mexico and Florida, there ought to be no impediment to Qatar operating this aircraft type to Doha he merely replied that different airlines have different operational requirements with the same type of aircraft. I could get no more out of him than that.

 

[Aviador]

Totally agree. The governments original idea for airport masterplans was to provide the public with reasonable notice regarding potential infrastructure developments. Surely it would be best if the airport would at least say land is going to be safeguard for a potential runway extension? If the current airport management has decided not persue a runway extension for the moment at least this way the door is left open for a future change in company policy or direction.

 

[Jerry]

Some of this might be no more than a hypothesis, but when I suggested to a senior BRS manager at a recent consultation drop-in that, with TUI operating the 787 to Mexico and Florida, there ought to be no impediment to Qatar operating this aircraft type to Doha he merely replied that different airlines have different operational requirements with the same type of aircraft. I could get no more out of him than that.

I think as well there is the consideration that airlines like TUI wouldn't have cargo to consider whereas airlines like Qatar and Emirates will be considering that.
It does seem that BRS's owners don't feel that a runway extension will bring them very little extra profit to them compared to the outlay needed especially if there is no guarentee that they could get the airlines that would warrant such an expenditure.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Totally agree. The governments original idea for airport masterplans was to provide the public with reasonable notice regarding potential infrastructure developments. Surely it would be best if the airport would at least say land is going to be safeguard for a potential runway extension? If the current airport management has decided not persue a runway extension for the moment at least this way the door is left open for a future change in company policy or direction.

The current master plan published over ten years ago sets out several runway extension scenarios in detail but concludes that the status quo is the best option. That was then but the master plan did say the matter would be reviewed in future master plans. It seems the review this time has decided no change in current policy.

I think as well there is the consideration that airlines like TUI wouldn't have cargo to consider whereas airlines like Qatar and Emirates will be considering that.
It does seem that BRS's owners don't feel that a runway extension will bring them very little extra profit to them compared to the outlay needed especially if there is no guarentee that they could get the airlines that would warrant such an expenditure.

Currently there is little cargo carried from CWL so that in itself would not be a factor in Qatar's decision to operate from there even though in future the cargo situation might change. BRS is talking about trying to get more of the area around it removed from the green belt which would open up the possibility of cargo operations.

 

[Jerry]

The current master plan published over ten years ago sets out several runway extension scenarios in detail but concludes that the status quo is the best option. That was then but the master plan did say the matter would be reviewed in future master plans. It seems the review this time has decided no change in current policy.



Currently there is little cargo carried from CWL so that in itself would not be a factor in Qatar's decision to operate from there even though in future the cargo situation might change. BRS is talking about trying to get more of the area around it removed from the green belt which would open up the possibility of cargo operations.

But the potential is there especially considering Wales is an exporting nation and the cargo facilities which are small are already in place.

 

[Marko1]

I too find it puzzling that even a modest runway extension is not being considered. I'm guessing the costs and aggravation involved will not be returned by new routes that cannot be handled by the current runway length. After all Birmingham hasn't gained any significant long haul growth that was not being handled by the old runway length . The only nagging doubts I have is the performance of the new a321lr and 737max on bristols runway but again I'm sure brs has checked it out with airbus and Boeing in the same they did with the Dreamliner.

Personally it's stands and terminal space that is priority after getting the 10 mill limit lifted.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

But the potential is there especially considering Wales is an exporting nation and the cargo facilities which are small are already in place.

I don't doubt the potential. I was making the point that having no cargo to speak of didn't stop Qatar commencing its CWL operation which begs the question: how important is cargo in the overall scheme of things on this route, by which I mean Severnside-Doha

I too find it puzzling that even a modest runway extension is not being considered. I'm guessing the costs and aggravation involved will not be returned by new routes that cannot be handled by the current runway length. After all Birmingham hasn't gained any significant long haul growth that was not being handled by the old runway length . The only nagging doubts I have is the performance of the new a321lr and 737max on bristols runway but again I'm sure brs has checked it out with airbus and Boeing in the same they did with the Dreamliner.

Personally it's stands and terminal space that is priority after getting the 10 mill limit lifted.

If there was an operational factor that ruled out Qatar considering BRS (if there was I'm not trying to say they would have gone to BRS if there hadn't been one) it would almost certainly have been the runway - we know that the BRS PCN can take a 787 because TUI operates them so aircraft weight would not be an issue.

CWL's runway is 2392 metres x 46 metres overall length whereas BRS's runway is 2011 metres x 46 metres overall length - a difference of 381 metres. Both are asphalt runways. CWL is 220 feet AMSL and BRS is 622 feet AMSL.

The TORA on CWL's 12 is 2352 metres and on BRS's 09 it's 1978 metres a difference of 374 metres.
The TORA on CWL's 30 is 2354 metres and on BRS's 27 it's 1938 metres a difference of 416 metres.
The LDA on CWL's 12 is 2133 metres and on BRS's 09 it's 1938 metres a difference of 195 metres.
The LDA on CWL's 30 is 2201 metres and on BRS's 27 it's 1876 metres a difference of 325 metres.

Doesn't seem an awful lot when looked at in that way but a 389-metre extension would involve a 150-metre tunnel along the A38 beneath the extended runway and some airport occupation of Felton Common; the degree would depend on which runway extension option was favoured. At the moment it's none.

 

[Jerry]

The only nagging doubts I have is the performance of the new a321lr and 737max on bristols runway but again I'm sure brs has checked it out with airbus and Boeing in the same they did with the Dreamliner.

Looking at Wikipedia it says the A321neo needs 6522 feet of runway for takeoff and it's maximum weight is 97 tons. Nothing on their for the MAX.

 

[Marko1]

So technically it would be able to operate for say Norwegian transatlantic then ?

 

[Jerry]

So technically it would be able to operate for say Norwegian transatlantic then ?

It may well be possible. I think it would depend on the airline but it looks like a possibility.

 

[Aviador]

Looking at Wikipedia it says the A321neo needs 6522 feet of runway for takeoff and it's maximum weight is 97 tons. Nothing on their for the MAX.

What it says in an Airbus or Boeing manual can differ from what the airlines are prepared to accept as their minimums. It's quite common to see airline imposed restrictions, even down to specific airport restrictions. At LBA Tui used to impose a restriction on ILS CAT III ops even though the airport there was CAT III compliant.

Sometime ago I asked Airbus if the A350 could operate out of BRS and LBA and the reply was YES but with weight restrictions. Even if the aircraft can land and take-off it will be restricted to how far it can travel with a reduced payload.

A modest extension to the runway would enable aircraft to depart with more fuel, enabling destinations a little further afield. Fewer long haul flights would be diverted for a fuel-stop. It would also offer improved landing and take off distances for all aircraft.

 

[Foxlimayankee]

This article is about Corks runway possibly being too small. I think this was prior to the route starting, but Corks runway is longer than BRS and is close to the US than BRS.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business...r-norwegian-air-flights-to-new-york-1.3041237
I have heard from a TCX pilot that the A321 can struggle on BRS runway in the wrong conditions on even the 4 hour flights.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

This article is about Corks runway possibly being too small. I think this was prior to the route starting, but Corks runway is longer than BRS and is close to the US than BRS.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business...r-norwegian-air-flights-to-new-york-1.3041237
I have heard from a TCX pilot that the A321 can struggle on BRS runway in the wrong conditions on even the 4 hour flights.

Not the first time I've heard that about the A321 although I can't remember fuel stops having to be made very often if at all, and they've been flying regularly on 4-hour sectors for several years.

The MAX question is extremely pertinent. These days many business travellers, especially from the regions, use low-cost airlines for short or even for short medium haul if that's not a contradiction, as they are often the best value for money and frequently the only options from the regions. Who is to say that within perhaps a decade much of transatlantic business travel as well as leisure won't be significantly in the hands of low-cost airlines?

What it says in an Airbus or Boeing manual can differ from what the airlines are prepared to accept as their minimums. It's quite common to see airline imposed restrictions, even down to specific airport restrictions. At LBA Tui used to impose a restriction on ILS CAT III ops even though the airport there was CAT III compliant.

Sometime ago I asked Airbus if the A350 could operate out of BRS and LBA and the reply was YES but with weight restrictions. Even if the aircraft can land and take-off it will be restricted to how far it can travel with a reduced payload.

A modest extension to the runway would enable aircraft to depart with more fuel, enabling destinations a little further afield. Fewer long haul flights would be diverted for a fuel-stop. It would also offer improved landing and take off distances for all aircraft.

Absolutely, Aviador. You make the valid point about airlines not using certain airports with some aircraft even though the type could use it and other airlines do so. The idea that BRS seems to have that 'all will be good on long-haul in future because of the new types of aircraft' is shown as questionable with the MAX, and not necessarily the case as pointed out by Aviador (not for the first time).

Having an inadequate runway can have other negative connotations too. When the Ryanair with a flap issue diverted to CWL recently because of the longer runway there it's bound to draw further attention to the inadequacy of the BRS runway.

I pointed out in a recent post that the reason Qatar didn't consider BRS might be because that airline requires a greater minimum distance for their 787s than other airlines who are prepared to use the BRS runway. Aviador's post gives support to this hypothesis.

Extending the runway would be costly and problematical from an environmental standpoint - even though 'only' a further 381 metres of asphalt is needed to equal the runway length at CWL. It looks as though the airport has already put the issue in the 'too hard to consider' basket which I find extremely surprising given the current major look at the next 30 years. The airport owners might only change their mind when they see a number of airlines that could use BRS on longer routes eschew the airport even though they are using types that could use the runway, or types which the airport currently believes could use it but in the fullness of time will be found to be unsuitable.

We know that around 1.6 million travellers to/from South Wales use BRS each year and that naturally CWL is targeting some of these. CAA and other surveys tell us consistently that over 5 million travellers to/from the South West use London airports (mainly LHR) each year. BRS has said publicly that getting some of these to use Lulsgate is one of their targets. So long as BRS remains a short-haul airport with a smattering of long-haul charter routes it will be that much harder to capture many of these travellers.

In the last year BRS has had a revamp in its top management with some senior positions seeing new faces, not all with an aviation background. Last summer the previous CEO announced he was moving to LCY in October. The airport is yet to announce a successor. His or her identity, when finally revealed, will be interesting to say the least, especially their background and areas of previous experience.

Since the days of Les Wilson from 1980 I've always felt that one of the major strengths of BRS and the reason for much of its success since then has been the quality of its management team. In the main they've been 'aviation people'. I hope that proven successful path is not being given a re-think.

 

[Aviador]

This article is about Corks runway possibly being too small. I think this was prior to the route starting, but Corks runway is longer than BRS and is close to the US than BRS.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business...r-norwegian-air-flights-to-new-york-1.3041237
I have heard from a TCX pilot that the A321 can struggle on BRS runway in the wrong conditions on even the 4 hour flights.

As another example Jet2 have operated direct flights from LBA to Newark using 757 equipment. Occasionally, the flights have had to do a fuel stop in Canada.

PIA have also operated non-stop flights to Islamabad using A310 equipment.

The actual paved area at LBA is 2250m. Here's the distances available using runway 32:

TORA: 2190m
TODA: 2389m
ASDA: 2190m
LDA: 1916m

LBA distances on runway 14 are:

TORA: 2113m
TODA: 3169m
ASDA: 2113m
LDA: 1802m

I know the main stumbling block at LBA is the landing distance which is less than the available landing distance at BRS at both ends.