Airport Master Plan for next 30 Years - Consultation

[kraktoa]

Invitation to a public consultation event on 5th Dec at Felton vllage hall from 11 am to 2pm. On their airport facebook page.

Part of a series of events about future plans. Should be a fiesty one at Felton.

 

[tpm]

Did anyone already mention https://www.bristolairportfuture.com ?

 

[forest1979]

Interesting read, particularly one of the pillars ‘design considerations’ I noted the potential land acquisition, north and south of the runway but as part of that they state that a runway extension is not part of their plans.. hope this means currently but not totally off the table...

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Did anyone already mention https://www.bristolairportfuture.com ?

Surprisingly not it would seem. I've been out all day and got home to see a very brief mention on BBC Points West local tv evening news.

Having had a look through the lengthy suggestions for the way forward the following things stood out for me.

+ The new annual passenger projections are 12 million in 2025; 15 million in 2035; 19 million in 2045.

+ Three terminal scenarios are suggested for consideration:

(a) develop and enlarge the existing one with expanded infrastructure

(b) demolish the existing terminal and build a new one on the north side

(c) build a new terminal on the south side to complement the one on the north side (this is contrary to a comment from Robert Sinclair in an aviation magazine earlier this year when he said that future major commercial development would be restricted to the north side - then again he's no longer at the airport. Incidentally, it's interesting that the airport chairman (who is actually a woman despite her title) wrote the foreword this time instead of the CEO who introduced the existing master plan, although there is also a comment from the planning and sustainability director)

+ The airport says it has no current plans to extend the runway with the A 38 remaining a clearly defined eastern boundary.

Lots of meetings listed around the area where the public can meet airport managers to give their opinions. This can also be done by way of questionnaires on the website. Following these consultations a draft master plan will be prepared that will go out to further consultation.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I mentioned the fleeting appearance of the master plan 'proposals' on the main BBC tv local news programme this evening; I also had to search for a mention in the web edition of the Bristol post. There was an article tucked away down the side of the page.

If, say, CWL had come out with proposals for a series of major transformations for itself I'm pretty certain the local press (incidentally the same Trinity Mirror group as the Bristol Post) would give it prominent coverage with comments from their business staff and aviation experts. All the Bristol Post did was publish a slimmed-down version of the airport press release with no opinion or any other input whatever.

The BBC West business editor was at BRS this evening but in the local news programme I alluded to above he merely presented a short summary of some of the possible proposals without offering any view on them at all. Neither was there any interview with airport management.

 

[Marko1]

It makes very interesting reading and no doubt after the consultation period it will look very different . I think scenario c will provide the greatest expansion possibilties plus a staged development as well although both other scenarios have their merit. One major point is the absence of a consideration to extending the runway. I think this is a major sticking point going forward. If they truely wish to go for long haul services they have to go and extend that runway at some point .

Overall there is certainly ambition here

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I shall make it my business to attend one of the 'drop-in' sessions and I'll certainly be pressing them about the thinking behind the runway decision. Whether I get a meaningful answer (as opposed to 'company-speak') remains to be seen.

When the existing master plan was being prepared in 2005 I attended a similar 'drop-in' event and had a long chat with the then CEO, Andrew Skipp who was surprisingly candid. If I get the chance this time I'll also try to see if I can get any hint of why they think they missed out on Qatar.

 

[forest1979]

I will look forward to your update lokal yokel after one of your visits to the drop in.. I’m sure you will have s last no list to put too them representing most of the commentary from this forum..

 

[forest1979]

* have a long list to put to them.. I phone typing!!

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I have created this new thread for this subject which is likely to be topical over the next 12 months or so. I have moved existing posts on the subject from other threads to this one.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

In connection with the consultation the public can have its say online via a feedback form and/or attend a drop-in event at various locations (listed below) over the next two months.

https://www.bristolairportfuture.com/have-your-say/

Have your say online
Give us your views by filling out our online feedback form.

Feedback form

Bristol Airport is holding a series of consultation events, for members of the public to drop-in at any time, and learn more about the airport and its plans, talk to members of the senior leadership team at the airport, and talk about any questions they might have about the airport’s future.

The public is invited to visit us at any of the times and venues detailed below, at whatever time is convenient for them, to simply take a quick look, or to discuss specific issues with a member of the team.

November

• Tuesday 28th: Hampton-by-Hilton, Bristol Airport, 3pm-8pm
  
  
• Thursday 30th: Hans Price conference centre, Weston-super-Mare, 11am-2pm

December

• Friday 1st: Wrington Village Hall, 3pm-7pm
  
  
• Tuesday 5th: Felton Village Hall, 11am-2pm
  
  
• Thursday 7th: Engine Shed, Bristol, 11am-2pm
  
  
• Thursday 14th: Bristol & Bath Science Park, Emersons Green, 11am-2pm

January

• Tuesday 9th: Cleeve Village Hall, 2pm-5pm
  
  
• Wednesday 10th: Hangstones Pavilion, Yatton, 4pm-8pm
  
  
• Thursday 11th: Guildhall, Bath, 11am-2pm
  
  
• Monday 15th: Backwell Village Hall, 12pm-3pm
  
  
• Thursday 18th: Fear Hall, Keynsham, 11am-2pm
  
  
• Friday 19th: The Old Schoolroom, Chew Magna, 4pm-8pm
  
  
• Saturday 20th: Hampton-by-Hilton, Bristol Airport, 11am-4pm

 

[forest1979]

Interesting read in the Bristol post today. I cant find the original images to focus in on them to see the detail. Very clear again that they are ruling out a runway extension and relying on what they know today and projected advances in aircraft technology for LH (Sure this was the case before)
The acquisition of land to complete any of the examples seems to be significant. Do they own this land now? Certainly development on the north would take into account winters lane would it not?

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-airport-consider-adding-second-794314

 

[Aviador]

There is only so much aircraft manufacturers can do to improve performance from short runways. The 787 and A350 haven't brought about a sea-change in performance enhancements that were promised and the aircraft still have limitations. It has also been noted that many airlines are opting for larger variants making the airports with short runways even more inaccessible.

 

[forest1979]

There is only so much aircraft manufacturers can do to improve performance from short runways. The 787 and A350 haven't brought about a sea-change in performance enhancements that were promised and the aircraft still have limitations. It has also been noted that many airlines are opting for larger variants making the airports with short runways even more inaccessible.

Agree totally which is why I cant understand their current position... This was the case with the previous plans. I cant see things changing in that respect and with pretty much every airport surrounding Bristol having better capability, you have to wonder if they really believe what they are stating. I'm assuming that they are aware of something we don't which completely rules runway ext out.
If they concentrate on short haul then its going to be interesting to see what their future proposition is likely to be. Currently sustainable with large LOCO presence but not very future proof. To be a world leading regional airport I think they need to look at their business and scheduled carrier capabilities to large cities across Europe and further east. I'm surprised that Istanbul for one hasn't been secured so far.

 

[kraktoa]

What proportion Of the airports profit come from car parking?

If the number is very high as i have heard in the past, then howdoes lack of a long haul figure in the equation?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

What proportion Of the airports profit come from car parking?

If the number is very high as i have heard in the past, then howdoes lack of a long haul figure in the equation?

As you say, quite a considerable amount I would think. Airports like BRS get most of their money from ancillary revenue streams such as car parking and retail outlets. The 'old days' of seeing most of your revenue come from charges to airlines have gone in these low-cost airline days where they don't expect to pay much for using an airport but in return deliver a large footfall that feeds the ancillary streams.

You are right in many ways that a long-haul flight doesn't really make any more money for the airport than a short-haul in terms of feeding that ancillary revenue stream, although the larger aircraft usually employed will create more passenger footfall per flight. BRS says it wants to become a world-class regional airport. That means having a bigger spread of full-service airlines, including some long-haul, than is the case at the moment.

Interesting read in the Bristol post today. I cant find the original images to focus in on them to see the detail. Very clear again that they are ruling out a runway extension and relying on what they know today and projected advances in aircraft technology for LH (Sure this was the case before)
The acquisition of land to complete any of the examples seems to be significant. Do they own this land now? Certainly development on the north would take into account winters lane would it not?
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-airport-consider-adding-second-794314

There is only so much aircraft manufacturers can do to improve performance from short runways. The 787 and A350 haven't brought about a sea-change in performance enhancements that were promised and the aircraft still have limitations. It has also been noted that many airlines are opting for larger variants making the airports with short runways even more inaccessible.

Agree totally which is why I cant understand their current position... This was the case with the previous plans. I cant see things changing in that respect and with pretty much every airport surrounding Bristol having better capability, you have to wonder if they really believe what they are stating. I'm assuming that they are aware of something we don't which completely rules runway ext out.
If they concentrate on short haul then its going to be interesting to see what their future proposition is likely to be. Currently sustainable with large LOCO presence but not very future proof. To be a world leading regional airport I think they need to look at their business and scheduled carrier capabilities to large cities across Europe and further east. I'm surprised that Istanbul for one hasn't been secured so far.

My thoughts are the same regarding the reliance on new generations of aircraft being able to use the current BRS runway for long-haul. The recent types are not as efficient off short runways as was originally believed would be the case so it's a huge leap of faith for the airport to believe that future generations will necessarily be better. Aviador rightly points out that airlines are increasingly ordering the largest versions of the new types. The B787-10 probably could not use BRS for, say, Dubai, which would probably rule out Emirates in the forthcoming years.

There is also doubt about the B737MAX and A321neo which might have been an answer to transatlantic scheduled routes in the future.

Reading the grandiose proposals in the consultation document it seems beyond belief that they seem content to keep faith in what some people describe as a ski-jump ramp. At least have an in-depth look at a runway extension in this consultation even if in the end the best option still turned out to be retaining the status quo. I don't know whether a starter strip would be regarded as a runway extension but it would have limited value on 09 (the airport's conclusion in the existing master plan). Such a move might be under active consideration without the wish to put it out to consultation.

As for the status of land that would need to be taken into use for the various scenarios set out in the consultation document, it seems from the document that it is not currently in airport ownership.

At the moment the necessary land (at either end) is within the Green Belt but there is a precedent for altering such status in that in 2007 land and buildings to the north of the airport were taken out of the Green Belt and placed in a Green Belt Inset.

My initial inclination is to favour Scenario C, which is to broadly keep the current terminal, albeit with expansion, together with a second terminal on the south side. I shall try to glean further information on the three scenarios when I attend a drop-in event.

Part of this is pragmatic in that there might be less opposition to enlarging the airport at the south end rather than in the northwest where there are more houses in the immediate vicinity.

I also feel that a single terminal, even the Scenario B where the existing terminal is removed to be replaced by a new state-of-art terminal, would still be liable to unpleasant overcrowding when passenger numbers grew towards 15-20 mppa. Scenario C would also provide more aircraft parking stands. Against that a series of new taxiways would have to be provided and the airport says phasing might be more difficult.

One thing that did catch my attention is that the consultation document says that the airport will be at full capacity in terms of space at 10 mppa. The fact that it is projecting 12 mppa by 2025 means that some significant infrastructure work will have to be carried out in the next few years. It seems that work already 'in the pipeline' is substantial with the demolition of the original terminal, the provision of new aircraft stands at that location and a connecting walkway. Whether this would tide over the airport to projected 2025 passenger levels I have no idea.

Scenario B would entail demolishing the current terminal and building another partly on the site of the existing one (according to the maps). Removing one and building a new one whilst at the same time trying to cater for the anticipated 12 mppa would surely be a huge logistical and demolition/construction task if it had to be achieved, or even partly achieved, in the next seven years.

Finally, I can't help saying again that I am amazed that the airport is embarking on this all-embracing look into its future with no chief executive officer in post.

 

[forest1979]

Indeed.. where is this new CEO?

 

[Marko1]

regarding long haul I can kind of understand the lack of mention of a runway extension given the fact that a 787 can in the right conditions fly a 10 hour flight non stop against the jet stream from the existing runway. Given that the cargo load is likely to be low that would make the Middle East and east coast North America realistic targets for new routes. However gaining a few of them may not justify the costs involved in lengthening the runway plus I guessing if the nimbys are getting organised maybe the priority is expanding the terminal etc first otherwise a runway plan may just delay even further the plans. To be honest they really need to be getting on with the plans asap. Personally I think they should go for scenario c allowing the north side to be used whilst the south side is reconstructed. North side could be used for cargo etc afterwards . From the plans it certainly looks as though more land could be used south side than is available north side.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

regarding long haul I can kind of understand the lack of mention of a runway extension given the fact that a 787 can in the right conditions fly a 10 hour flight non stop against the jet stream from the existing runway. Given that the cargo load is likely to be low that would make the Middle East and east coast North America realistic targets for new routes. However gaining a few of them may not justify the costs involved in lengthening the runway plus I guessing if the nimbys are getting organised maybe the priority is expanding the terminal etc first otherwise a runway plan may just delay even further the plans. To be honest they really need to be getting on with the plans asap. Personally I think they should go for scenario c allowing the north side to be used whilst the south side is reconstructed. North side could be used for cargo etc afterwards . From the plans it certainly looks as though more land could be used south side than is available north side.

I prefer Scenario C currently, for the reasons I gave in my previous post in this thread with the procurement of more land perhaps not quite as contentious as it might be on the north side, although the usual suspects will object whatever is proposed. The only thing that would make some of them happy would be the airport closing down.

I don't know if other airports go in for the time-consuming lengths of widespread public consultation when preparing their master plans. BRS did so in 2005 prior to the existing master plan being published. I understand that CWL is reappraising its master plan but I can find no suggestion of a major public consultation. I don't think they consulted widely when their existing master plan was prepared around the same time as BRS's.

Perhaps BRS has a particular problem with objectors and believes that this is a way of getting popular support as 'evidence' that SBAE's was/is a minority view. SBAE (StopBristolAirportExpansion) was thought to be one of the best organised, best connected and best funded airport opposition groups in the country. When the major expansion plan was being considered by the local authority, formal objections to it came from as far away as Australia. At the same time straw polls conducted by both the local tv and local paper returned consistent votes in the region of 70% in favour. No doubt SBAE will be dusting down its old files and preparing for another round of objections.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/what-cardiff-airports-biggest-rival-13942046

I was amused to read an article in Walesonline today pointing out that in its master plan consultation document the airport planning director had emphasised that BRS is primarily a short haul and European destination airport; as if this is something new. Nothing has changed; the planning director was merely re-stating something that is self-evident - it always has been and always will be short haul and European in essence.

It still has aspirations for some long haul scheduled services but the existing master plan is clear that there is a limited demand for this type of service, and in 2006 suggested that perhaps only about four long haul scheduled routes would become viable in the future, viz one to the Middle East and possibly three to the USA which it thought might be New York, Washington and Atlanta.

The existing master plan thinks there would be more scope for long haul charters and so it is proving, and this is made quite clear in the consultation document.

Looking far into the future airports like BRS will always be primarily short haul and European in nature. They are never likely to have anything approaching a substantial scheduled long haul network. Only the main London airports and major provincial airports (and I can't look beyond MAN and probably BHX) would have the size of catchment to provide a significant scheduled long haul programme.

It took a reporter and a business editor to come up with an article that consists of little more than quotes from various press releases and government statements.