Advertisement


Airport Master Plan for next 30 Years - Consultation

Apr 26, 2017
57
43
18
Taunton
“Millennials could make up as much as half of our passengers in 20 years’ time........"

...in 20 years time those millenials will have very different commitments, priorities, incomes etc. to what they have now, and their behaviour will change accordingly. e.g. when tied to school holidays with a large mortgage they are less likely to be able to afford three+ overseas holidays a year!

"11% of 18-24 year olds identify themselves as European....." - I wonder how high that percentage would have been before the 2016 referendum!

If this is the rubbish that BRS is basing it's strategy around, heaven help us!
 

Advertisement


TheLocalYokel

Administrator
Staff member
I've upgraded to support F4A!
Jan 14, 2009
11,391
4,757
343
Wurzel Country
Admin #102
“Millennials could make up as much as half of our passengers in 20 years’ time........"

...in 20 years time those millenials will have very different commitments, priorities, incomes etc. to what they have now, and their behaviour will change accordingly. e.g. when tied to school holidays with a large mortgage they are less likely to be able to afford three+ overseas holidays a year!

"11% of 18-24 year olds identify themselves as European....." - I wonder how high that percentage would have been before the 2016 referendum!

If this is the rubbish that BRS is basing it's strategy around, heaven help us!
Someone at the airport decided it was a good idea to pay YouGov to carry out this survey. I can only imagine it's part of the master plan calculations although, if it is, I don't know why the results were published now instead of waiting to be part of the draft master plan that is due out later this spring.
 

alphagolf

Active Member
Jun 8, 2010
471
187
43
Bowerhill, Melksham. Wiltshire

TheLocalYokel

Administrator
Staff member
I've upgraded to support F4A!
Jan 14, 2009
11,391
4,757
343
Wurzel Country
Admin #104
NCL has published a new master plan today to take it to 2035. Currently NCL is handling 5.3 mppa (BRS over 8.2 mppa) and its high end projections are for 7.6 mppa in 2025, 8.7 in 2030 and 9.4 in 2035. NCL is majority owned by a number of local authorities with a private sector investor holding 49% of the equity.

I found the approach to the runway question interesting and it differs from BRS's approach.

NCL has a runway of 2,329 metres length, 318 metres longer than BRS, and has set aside land for a 700-metre extension should this prove necessary. Its 2003 master plan favoured a runway extension but a 2013 revision decided against. Like BRS it thought (hoped) that new types of technology would render runway extensions unnecessary.

It now accepts that this might not be the case and whilst a 1,400-metre extension would cater for all types of existing and new aircraft the cost in both finace and disruption would be too much. It therefore believes that a 700-metre extension would be a happy medium and cater for most types of aircraft likely to use NCL.

The maximum realistic extension at BRS would take it to 2,400 metres, not much longer than NCL's present strip, so no doubt BRS would point to that as one reason why such an extension would not be worth the cost and disruption. BHX extended its runway a few yars ago from 2,6000 metres to 3,000 metres which is broadly the length a 700-metre extension at NCL would achieve.

I don't know if BHX has gained any services it would not have done had it still had a 2,600-metre runmway.
 

kfs

New Member
May 11, 2018
10
16
3
58
Devon
I always understood the purpose of the BHX extension was to be able to handle the A380. Didn't they also change the taxiways? So far it has only brought one flight per day, but they may attract more in the future. Good luck to them. Having used the EK A380 service a few times, as a passenger, it was worth it, especially compared to the alternative of the 10-abreast EK 777.
 

TheLocalYokel

Administrator
Staff member
I've upgraded to support F4A!
Jan 14, 2009
11,391
4,757
343
Wurzel Country
Admin #107
I always understood the purpose of the BHX extension was to be able to handle the A380. Didn't they also change the taxiways? So far it has only brought one flight per day, but they may attract more in the future. Good luck to them. Having used the EK A380 service a few times, as a passenger, it was worth it, especially compared to the alternative of the 10-abreast EK 777.
Thank you for that kfs. Welcome to Forums4Airports. Thank you Jerry, too for your reply.
 

TheLocalYokel

Administrator
Staff member
I've upgraded to support F4A!
Jan 14, 2009
11,391
4,757
343
Wurzel Country
Admin #108
The second stage of public consultation into the new master plan will be held between 14 May and 6 July.

I've just listed in the BRS Airport Consultative Committee thread some of the main points of the minutes of the last airport consultative committee meeting (held on 25 April this year) .

Unsurprisingly, the master plan procedures were amongst items discussed and this is what the minutes say about that.

1,750 responses had been received in connection with the initial consultation into the new master plan. A wide range of issues had been raised including surface access, speedier security, carbon footprint and international travel. The second stage of the consultation will take place between 14 May and 6 July and will include direct mail to 30,000 households, as well as 20 consultation events, giving further detail on phasing, timing and detail of developments (short, medium and long- term).

In parallel with this, a pre-application consultation would be held for a planning application to increase the passenger limit to 12 million passengers. The pre-application consultation would include proposals for a new canopy at the front of the terminal, extensions to the terminal, the addition of a third multi-storey car park, local junction improvements, an on-site gyratory system and airfield enhancements. There were no plans to increase the annual number of night flights currently permitted.
 

rollo

Platinum Member
Aug 26, 2014
780
1,313
113
I always understood the purpose of the BHX extension was to be able to handle the A380. Didn't they also change the taxiways? So far it has only brought one flight per day, but they may attract more in the future. Good luck to them. Having used the EK A380 service a few times, as a passenger, it was worth it, especially compared to the alternative of the 10-abreast EK 777.
Yes they had to increase the fillets on some of the taxiways at BHX also modified a couple of stands and last year put in a triple air bridge to accommodate the 380s upper deck. By the way there are twice daily A380 rotations.

The great hope for the runway extension was to get services to the far east particularly China and also U.S.and Canadian east coasts,but apart from a few charters to china and a one season wonder by Tui to Phuket nothing has materialized yet so maybe Bristols decision is correct but of course you'll never know if you don't do it a bit like so much in life.
 

Aviador

Administrator
Staff member
I've upgraded to support F4A!
Jan 12, 2009
12,404
3,341
323
HEAD OFFICE
Admin #110
I always understood the purpose of the BHX extension was to be able to handle the A380. Didn't they also change the taxiways? So far it has only brought one flight per day, but they may attract more in the future. Good luck to them. Having used the EK A380 service a few times, as a passenger, it was worth it, especially compared to the alternative of the 10-abreast EK 777.
The main purpose of the BHX runway extension was to enable flights to go further afield.
 

rollo

Platinum Member
Aug 26, 2014
780
1,313
113
They switched from 2×777 and 1×380 to 2×380 early last year both normally 615 seats currently running with apprx 90% load factors so hoping for the morning service to be reinstalled in the near future being an eternal optermist.which I have to be being a Birmingham City fan.
 

tpm

Active Member
Apr 7, 2012
209
75
28
Just had a quick read through that.

Main takeaway: immediate focus is on piecemeal expansion to 12mppa and then 15mppa. No "big plan" for the future for now (although that might be slightly unfair, see below). Seems like there will be some minor extensions to the main terminal on all sides, and they will work on more MSCPs and the transport hub that was promised as part of the 10mppa application. Maybe also redo the landside road layout. They talk of improving surface access with even more busses/coaches.

One quote regarding long-haul:
Although our focus has been on developing our low-cost, full service and charter flights, there are now opportunities to deliver further direct long-haul routes.
Not much change in the language about a possible runway extension.

What stood out the most however, was a proposal for a massive expansion of the apron to the west. Partly by ground level raised to the apron and with considerable parts of the apron built on supported concrete slabs which would open up a huge amount of space underneath for operational use or other use cases (hotels, offices). My understanding is that this is outside of the current airport boundary and would require the acquisition of land. Apparently this is only needed once demand exceeds 12mppa, but seeing where we are now and how long it would take to purchase, plan and construct all of this, I would be surprised if this is not the next big thing in the pipeline. Comes with underground passenger tunnels apparently. They word 'travelator' may have been mentioned even!

The near-future plans in the document also showed an eastern walkway as 'existing buildings', but I don't think this actually exists yet as of today or does it?

Anyway, good stuff.
 

TheLocalYokel

Administrator
Staff member
I've upgraded to support F4A!
Jan 14, 2009
11,391
4,757
343
Wurzel Country
Admin #115
Just had a quick read through that.

Main takeaway: immediate focus is on piecemeal expansion to 12mppa and then 15mppa. No "big plan" for the future for now (although that might be slightly unfair, see below). Seems like there will be some minor extensions to the main terminal on all sides, and they will work on more MSCPs and the transport hub that was promised as part of the 10mppa application. Maybe also redo the landside road layout. They talk of improving surface access with even more busses/coaches.

One quote regarding long-haul:


Not much change in the language about a possible runway extension.

What stood out the most however, was a proposal for a massive expansion of the apron to the west. Partly by ground level raised to the apron and with considerable parts of the apron built on supported concrete slabs which would open up a huge amount of space underneath for operational use or other use cases (hotels, offices). My understanding is that this is outside of the current airport boundary and would require the acquisition of land. Apparently this is only needed once demand exceeds 12mppa, but seeing where we are now and how long it would take to purchase, plan and construct all of this, I would be surprised if this is not the next big thing in the pipeline. Comes with underground passenger tunnels apparently. They word 'travelator' may have been mentioned even!

The near-future plans in the document also showed an eastern walkway as 'existing buildings', but I don't think this actually exists yet as of today or does it?
Anyway, good stuff.
I've had a cursory glance too.

The consultation timeline seems to have slipped. On the original consultation papers it was said a draft master plan would be prepared based on the replies and other matters for further consulation in 2018. Reading the latest documents and listening to airport planning director, Simon Earles (a man with a track record of great experience of such matters at LHR in a senior position) on Radio Bristol this morning it seems the draft master plan won't now be produced until the end of the year and will lead to further consulation. So today's consultation announcement appears to be almost an extra step along the road.

The runway situation clearly hasn't changed as you point out and I can find nothing about freight. The aspiration to become a world-class regional airport seems suspect in my eyes if the runway remains limited and there is no significant freight facility. The likely greater profit of more short-haul services against the expense and return from a runway extension to enable long-haul is doubtless the important factor in the airport's decision. Interesting that Newcastle Airport, already with a longer runway than BRS, announced in its recent master plan that land for a 700-metre runway extension is being reserved should it prove necessary.

The preferred option at present - at least to take the airport to 12 mppa - is a reliance on the existing terminal with more extensions, although a replacement or additional terminal further to the west is not ruled out in the future. A southside terminal seems to have gone from their thinking. Given that the previous airport CEO said last year that all future development would be on the northside I wonder why a southside terminal was ever included as an option in the phase one consultation.

The current master plan published in 2006 is in two sections: a detailed plan for the period up to 2015 and an outline possible scenario for the period 2016-2030. In essence the airport is now filling in the details of the period after 2016 but only until the mid 2020s when it anticipates 12 mppa, although this is dependent on the local authority raising its current 10 mppa planning consents limit. A planning applcation will be submitted that seeks to raise the cap to 12 mppa.

The eastern walkway doesn't currently exist but so far as I know has outline planning permission to link it to stands at the eastern end that are due to be built when buildings are demolished. Demolition, or part-demolition in the first instance, is rumoured to be starting either this winter or next year.

There are to be 20 consultation drop-in events for the public between now and the end of June. They are to be held mainly in local towns and villages but they also encompass venues at Bath, Taunton, Yate and even Newport. However, very surprisingly the only one in Bristol itself will be in Knowle West in the south of the city. The first phase consulation venues included one in the centre of Bristol at Brunel's Engine Shed.

I shall take a more detailed look in due course at the information published today.
 

TheLocalYokel

Administrator
Staff member
I've upgraded to support F4A!
Jan 14, 2009
11,391
4,757
343
Wurzel Country
Admin #116
The quote tpm mentioned in #114 - Although our focus has been on developing our low-cost, full service and charter flights, there are now opportunities to deliver further direct long-haul routes - seems to be predicated on the thought that new types of aircraft will overcome the runway lmitations. This was said in the 2006 master plan and hasn't been fully realised as we know.

It's one thing to say there are opportunities - of course there are but they have to be realistic and achievable - but another to successfully embrace them. BRS has done well to get TUI's long haul transatlantic charter routes. That cannot be denied. The far more important scheduled long haul routes to major business centres via the Middle East or to North America seem as far away as ever, partly if the Qatar Airways CEO is to be believed because of operational constraints and a lack of freight opportunities.

I don't know whether this is a subtle change in strategy/policy but I found this comment amongst the future aims: Work with existing and potential airline partners to maximise the benefits of new aircraft technology, both in terms of increased route options and improved environmental performance. The bold is mine.

Elsewhere in the documentation released today I noted a projection that 10 mppa would be reached in 2021.
 

forest1979

Active Member
Mar 21, 2014
240
161
43
I found it interesting reading through it that the runway extension (or lack of it) was quite a clear statement. ‘No runway extension) I would really like to know if this is a financial position or political.. it has to be off putting for big airlines they may wish to court at some point... i note the piece around a platform raised apron extension.. interesting. I can see an apron as long as the runway...!
 

superking

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2013
1,398
463
83
I read some where Winters lane was to be moved and the airport buying Tall pines golf club. So the comment with apron as long as the runway becomes a reality.
 

TheLocalYokel

Administrator
Staff member
I've upgraded to support F4A!
Jan 14, 2009
11,391
4,757
343
Wurzel Country
Admin #119
I found it interesting reading through it that the runway extension (or lack of it) was quite a clear statement. ‘No runway extension) I would really like to know if this is a financial position or political.. it has to be off putting for big airlines they may wish to court at some point... i note the piece around a platform raised apron extension.. interesting. I can see an apron as long as the runway...!
It seems that nothing has changed since the 2006 master plan when the airport said this about the runway:

Our overall conclusion is 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. Our preferred option at this stage is therefore the 'do nothing' option.

The raised platform for an extended apron is not in play until the airport passes 12 mppa which they anticipate being in the mid 2020s. As tpm suggested, preparations for such a structure, including sourcing land and having it removed from the Green Belt, will need to be begun well before the 12 mppa level is reached.

I read some where Winters lane was to be moved and the airport buying Tall pines golf club. So the comment with apron as long as the runway becomes a reality.
There have been vague rumours for a while about the golf club but they might be no more than people putting two and two together and making five when they ponder how the airport can expand the size of its site.
 

TheLocalYokel

Administrator
Staff member
I've upgraded to support F4A!
Jan 14, 2009
11,391
4,757
343
Wurzel Country
Admin #120
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...sultation+Report+inc.+appendices+10.05.18.pdf

There are a number of supporting documents associated with the Towards 2050 update released yesterday. One is a summary of the consultation feedback in phase 1. It's a lengthy document and summarises the thrust of numerous issues with many examples of comments provided.

Further into the document are replies from the airport in answer to the plethora of issues raised.

There are so many that it's impossible in the time and space available here to do more than pick out one or two that I found either interesting or amusing.

On the question of the terminal options, 255 public responses favoured A, 279 favoured B and 556 favoured C. With other consultees (airlines, bus companies, PCAA, CPRE, Mendip Society and many more) C was still the favourite with 5 votes whilst A and B received 1 each. A number of the consultees expressed no opinion. Parish councils generally voted along the lines of what was less disruptive to them. For example, Wrington PC didn't want C as no doubt they thought it too close to their main village whilst Backwell PC voted for it as it would be further away from them than A or B (my cynical take).

Nevertheless, option C (second termial on Southside) was easily the favourite amongst the public and other consultees yet it is the one the airport has discarded. It makes you wonder if this consultation is merely lip service being paid. It's a bit like Brian Clough who when asked if he listened to the views of his staff replied, "Of course, then I do what I was going to do in the first place'".

Wrington PC, in whose area the airport sits, were generally negative. They thought the airport should have been at Filton or somewhere else (in other words anywhere but in Wrington's patch). There is an element of hypocrisy with Wrington PC because a few years ago the village started a twinning association with Villeneuve-lès-Béziers which continues to thrive on the back of Ryanair's Béziers route.

Many of the public responses concerned the runway and airport terminal.

Local authorities could see economic benefits to the region of airport expansion which is a bit rich coming from Bristol where a previous city administration formally objected to the airport's expansion plans that were approved in 2011.

Someone wanted the consultation documents available in Welsh and there were questions about a joint venture or partnership between BRS and CWL.

Tucked away in a myriad of airport responses to all manner of issues was one that addressed the freight question. The airport's reply was that there had been freight facilities in the past and the matter would be considered in the context of the new master plan.

There were also some comments that I found amusing. An unnamed parish council asked about the viability of installing a giant cable car at the airport. Quite why wasn't made abundantly clear. Someone else asked whether the challenging surface connectivity could be overcome with the provision of airships.

If anyone has the time or inclination to read this document it does put some things more into context, although the consultation process is still lonly at phase 2 with a further one at the end of the year following publication of the draft master plan.
 

Advertisement


Top Bottom