Airport Master Plan for next 30 Years - Consultation

[Marko1]

I can't help but think they are making a big mistake with not including even a modest extension in their consultation document. Otherwise what was the point of that online poll conducted recently ? Surely the airport would have had plenty of feedback from potential airlines saying about the inadequacy of the runway for longer destinations for them to sit up and think about it by now. Otherwise I cannot think what is going on in their minds.

Given that Europe is more or less covered by existing operators where does the airport intend to go in the next decade or so if no long haul airlines wish to come to Bristol ? At the moment it appears a gift horse for Cardiff and Birmingham to be honest

 

[Foxlimayankee]

I think it might also be driven by cost as a whole against other investment rather than just an individual cost. BRS has seen huge investment over recent years and much more to come. As a rough figure I think over 60m has already been invested in the past 5-7 years alone. With the new stands, knocking down the old terminal, fire station relocation, Eastern extension, further West extension and car parks etc, there is likely just not the money to invest in the runway when the return wouldn't be worth it. Had all the infrastructure already been in place then maybe the runway extension might've been viable.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I think it might also be driven by cost as a whole against other investment rather than just an individual cost. BRS has seen huge investment over recent years and much more to come. As a rough figure I think over 60m has already been invested in the past 5-7 years alone. With the new stands, knocking down the old terminal, fire station relocation, Eastern extension, further West extension and car parks etc, there is likely just not the money to invest in the runway when the return wouldn't be worth it. Had all the infrastructure already been in place then maybe the runway extension might've been viable.

More than £160 million since 2010 according to a recent BRS press release, and not far short of a similar amount (at today's values) in the decade or so before that. Currently a £9.5 million multi-storey car park is being constructed together with another aircraft stand.

The point about the new master plan consultation is that it is looking to be a blueprint for the next 30 years. Some of the things that will be included will not not occur immediately or perhaps not even for a decade or more. The current master plan was published in 2006 and many of the items in that have slowly come to fruition over the ensuing years - not all as you point out with the eastern end in particular to be dealt with.

That's why it seems short-sighted not to have another serious look at the runway issue now. An extension doesn't have to be something that will happen in the next 2-3 years. Indeed, the conclusion might be the same as the one in the current master plan (several runway extension options are listed in that) which is to do nothing, although there is a note saying, However it will be necessary to keep this issue under review this in subsequent updates of the Master Plan.

They are not keeping it under review at all as it's not being considered as part of the present consultation. Given that they are considering demolishing the current terminal that was only built less than 20 years ago or building a second terminal on the south side as options for the new master plan, as well as considering applications to expand the airport's area and remove part from the green belt, it seems crazy not to have a serious look at how an extended runway might fit in with all this, even if it wasn't built in the next few years.

 

[tpm]

In a way I do understand this constant obsession about the runway length, because of course most of us here want to see the airport not just thrive but thrive to its fullest potential, and the runway stands in the way of it reaching it's full potential.

However, it also strikes me that in the grand scheme of things the runway extension issue is orthogonal to the rest of the master plan, and in a way it would be a massive distraction, both for the airport itself but also for the public, because that's what would dominate the debate and be the focus of public attention. Whatever the airport decides to do master plan wise, the runway extension options will likely still be the same. They won't affect the master plan and the master plan doesn't affect them very much.

(That's not to say that I believe the airport is intentionally keeping the issue on the back burner for that reason of course, but it might influence its current judgment on the issue.)

Addendum:

Forgot to add, that I disagree that the airport has Europe "well covered". From a business traveller perspective connections are still rather inadequate. If I want to fly at certain days or times I have to hop via AMS or FRA or BRU. Only a few European cities have daily services or more frequent services even.

 

[Aviador]

There will come a point when the airport has achieved as much as is possible regarding flights to Europe and the only way they will be able to achieve more will be by offering routes further afield. An extended runway at Bristol is never going to allow the kind of destinations you might see from say Manchester or Birmingham but a modest extension of 200 - 300 metres would enable airlines like Qatar, Etihad or Emirates to consider using the airport and current operators such as Tui would be able to operate more long haul holiday routes.

 

[tpm]

Perhaps. But where will all that growth actually come from if not Europe? Even a translatlantic route and an ME3 link and a few extra charters aren't going to make a huuuge difference overall.

 

[Jerry]

An extended runway at Bristol is never going to allow the kind of destinations you might see from say Manchester or Birmingham but a modest extension of 200 - 300 metres would enable airlines like Qatar, Etihad or Emirates to consider using the airport and current operators such as Tui would be able to operate more long haul holiday routes.

And maybe that is why they aren't considering it? For the BRS owners it will be a big outlay for very little return in the future. With Qatar at CWL a ME3 is unlikely for quite a while at least and holiday flight wise where will TUI go? The Caribbean which they've already proved in range and even some Far East destinations are in range and TUI have proved they are quite happy to fly to MAN for a fuel stop if they need to. At the moment they don't seem interested in any winter ops at BRS and TUI aren't like TCX where there is the possibility of developing long haul flights to the US like at Manchester. The BRS owners seem to invest money into the places where they'll make money, new stands, upgraded terminal with better retail, a hotel and newer car parking, all of those will bring them profit in the future while a runway extension might not. If the airport was owned or half owned by the local authority then they may well be thinking of a wider picture but the BRS owners are thinking about profit.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

In a way I do understand this constant obsession about the runway length, because of course most of us here want to see the airport not just thrive but thrive to its fullest potential, and the runway stands in the way of it reaching it's full potential.

However, it also strikes me that in the grand scheme of things the runway extension issue is orthogonal to the rest of the master plan, and in a way it would be a massive distraction, both for the airport itself but also for the public, because that's what would dominate the debate and be the focus of public attention. Whatever the airport decides to do master plan wise, the runway extension options will likely still be the same. They won't affect the master plan and the master plan doesn't affect them very much.

(That's not to say that I believe the airport is intentionally keeping the issue on the back burner for that reason of course, but it might influence its current judgment on the issue.)

Addendum:

Forgot to add, that I disagree that the airport has Europe "well covered". From a business traveller perspective connections are still rather inadequate. If I want to fly at certain days or times I have to hop via AMS or FRA or BRU. Only a few European cities have daily services or more frequent services even.

I can see the argument in the point you make about the runway. The local news media always seem to headline on the possibility of a second terminal option when discussing the consultation. The fact that the airport is also considering an attempt to release some surrounding land from the green belt to expand the airport footprint doesn't yet seem to have attracted the same local media headline attention which is perhaps surprising.

An extended runway consideration might have dominated consultation news coverage it is true, but would that really be a bad thing? As I said earlier, a new review into the runway might have resulted in the same outcome as in the current master plan but at least the pros and cons would have been dissected from a 2018 viewpoint and not from a 2005 one. After all, if they are going to ask the public about terminals why not ask them about the runway?

I actually wonder how much notice the airport will take of the general public responses to its consultation. Probably the views of its airline partners, business groups and local government and local politicians will be looked on as more important. At least the consultation will get some idea of the general public's view on terminal and other infrastructure expansion but that would have applied to the runway issue too.

The airport is talking about 12 mppa by 2025. If that happens and there are no significant long haul additions the extra passengers are surely likely to come from enhanced frequencies on existing routes, so at least they might really have Europe 'well covered' by then.

There will come a point when the airport has achieved as much as is possible regarding flights to Europe and the only way they will be able to achieve more will be by offering routes further afield. An extended runway at Bristol is never going to allow the kind of destinations you might see from say Manchester or Birmingham but a modest extension of 200 - 300 metres would enable airlines like Qatar, Etihad or Emirates to consider using the airport and current operators such as Tui would be able to operate more long haul holiday routes.

The current master plan suggests there is limited demand for long haul scheduled services from BRS but that was based on 2005 information. Perhaps nothing has changed from that time when it was thought that about four long-haul destinations would be viable in the first part of the period covered, ie up till 2015: three to the USA (NYC, Washington and possibly Atlanta plus Dubai). Long-haul charter routes were thought to be more promising in scope then.

If BRS was better located on a larger site with good surface connectivity, more scheduled long-haul (than from Lulsgate) might not have been out of the question. Filton with its 2,600 metre runway, proximity to the junction of two major motorways, a main line railway line within a mile and a branch line threading through the site would seem to have been almost ideal. I say 'almost ideal' because it was a factory airfield which might have presented difficulties in turning it into a significant regional airport and it is situated on the edge of the city conurbation with many more houses under its flight path than the villages around Lulsgate. It's all academic now because there is no longer a Filton airfield, although it's still a major site for the aviation industry.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

If the airport was owned or half owned by the local authority then they may well be thinking of a wider picture but the BRS owners are thinking about profit.

The local authority hasn't the sort of money to invest to the degree necessary, not least because they would not have the ability to borrow the necessary funds even if they had the will, and it's highly unlikely they would have had the will anyway. That was why the city council reluctantly sold the airport into private ownership (initially part-ownership) over 20 years ago, since when not far short of £300 million has been invested by the various private owners down the years for infrastructure and other improvements.

If the airport had remained in city council hands it's not fanciful to suggest that it would be closed by now; if it was still open it would be relying on the small 1950s terminal for starters.

 

[Coathanger16]

How much opposition would their likely be from locals to a runway extension? If included in the master plan, could any opposition derail the master plan in its entirety? If so, might it be better to get the master plan approved and underway, and deal with any runway extension separately.

As others have mentioned, how much return the airport would get from extending the runway will play a part. A single based A320 could provide c. 400,000 new seats, whilst a daily Emirates flight (using say a B787-10) would provide just 240,000 new seats. For every £ spent, BRS will almost certainly get a greater return from investing it to provide more short haul capacity than long haul.

over 20 years ago, since when not far short of £300 million has been invested by the various private owners down the years for infrastructure and other improvements.

So the 400m runway extension at BHX supposedly cost £33m - that would equate to roughly 2 years worth of infrastructure spending at BRS over the past 20 years. Extending the runway could then mean that there's at least 2 years of spending that could not be spent elsewhere. Hence priorities come into play - how much of a priority is a runway extension compared to providing more stands/terminal capacity?

At some point, BRS's growth will max out as it covers most of Europe. When that will happen I've no idea, but when it does BRS will then have to look to long haul for growth. It is surprising that a runway extension is not even mentioned in the master plan except to say that it is not under consideration. Was there any part of the response to the consultation that covered "anything else you'd like to see included?"

 

[TheLocalYokel]

There is always a lot of opposition from vocal opponents to expanding BRS in any way. There was when the current plans were finally approved some years ago - so much that it was delayed by several years.

There will be opposition to extending the terminal or building a second terminal because new planning applications will have to be made at some point, once it's decided which way the airport owners want to proceed with their further expansion.

It won't derail the master plan in the sense that it will be published by the end of the year. What might be derailed in the future are some of the elements in the plan when they come to be acted on.

I agree that the cost/return of preparing for a long haul programme where the runway has to be extended would be less favourable from a profit perspective than concentrating on more short haul. BRS is extremely profitable so why would they want to endanger that, at least in the short term?

All I'm really saying is that the runway extension should be considered as part of the current consultation. If it's still decided it's a no-no as is the case in the current master plan then fair enough, but at least it's been looked at again as the current master plan says it will be.

The cost of extending the BRS runway might be more than the BHX extension. Depending on the option chosen the A38 might have to be dropped into a 150-metre tunnel. A runway extension if thought appropriate doesn't have to be built immediately. It would be part of the new master plan that covers the next 30 years or so as part of an over-arching template for the airport's development. BRS says that by the mid 2040s it might be handling circa 20 mppa.

There is a section in the consultation response form that enables comments on anything not otherwise covered.

 

[Coathanger16]

There will be opposition to extending the terminal or building a second terminal because new planning applications will have to be made at some point, once it's decided which way the airport owners want to proceed with their further expansion.

True, but look at Heathrow - they've managed to build T5 and T2 in recent years yet they are still struggling with a new runway & both have had significant opposition. Speaking of Heathrow, may BRS be waiting until its clear which (if any) London airport is allowed to expand. Might a new runway have an impact on the likelihood of new long haul routes being launched from BRS?

All I'm really saying is that the runway extension should be considered as part of the current consultation. If it's still decided it's a no-no as is the case in the current master plan then fair enough, but at least it's been looked at again as the current master plan says it will be.

Fully agree with you there. No harm in at least asking the general public if the runway should be extended. Could BRS have already spoken to current and potential airlines about a runway extension and not received a positive response, and hence ruled it out at this stage?

The cost of extending the BRS runway might be more than the BHX extension. Depending on the option chosen the A38 might have to be dropped into a 150-metre tunnel.

The original BHX runway extension plan was to drop the A45 into a tunnel too but to cut costs they decided to divert it instead - some sources said it would be put in a tunnel at a later stage, though that doesn't seem very likely!

 

[Marko1]

Don't forget apd devolution could have its part too

 

[kraktoa]

9.5 million on multi storey car park you say

They will double that money in profit in less than 5 years. It will take a long time before they can recoup monies spent on extending the runway.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

True, but look at Heathrow - they've managed to build T5 and T2 in recent years yet they are still struggling with a new runway & both have had significant opposition. Speaking of Heathrow, may BRS be waiting until its clear which (if any) London airport is allowed to expand. Might a new runway have an impact on the likelihood of new long haul routes being launched from BRS?

Fully agree with you there. No harm in at least asking the general public if the runway should be extended. Could BRS have already spoken to current and potential airlines about a runway extension and not received a positive response, and hence ruled it out at this stage?

The original BHX runway extension plan was to drop the A45 into a tunnel too but to cut costs they decided to divert it instead - some sources said it would be put in a tunnel at a later stage, though that doesn't seem very likely!

The airport's thinking is that the latest generation of aircraft such as the B 787 and A 350 can use BRS for long haul from the current runway. TUI's 787-8s apparently had no trouble last summer with Florida non-stop and for the most part Cancun non-stop (about three of the outbound flights had to call at MAN for fuel because of adverse en-route winds). This summer Punta Cana is being added by TUI. The 787-8 seems a fit then so long as the airline is willing to use it, and currently TUI is willing. Whether the 787-9 could use BRS for such routes seems more problematical so I'm told but I'm no aircraft expert, ditto the A350. Some airlines are beginning to use the 737 MAX and 321 neo for transatlantic. Again, there seems doubt in some quarters that they could use the BRS runway.

For whatever reason, Qatar didn't come to BRS with its 787-8s to Doha, much closer than Florida or Mexico, so either it was a commercial decision to use CWL or Qatar uses different criteria with its 787-8s than TUI. If the latter then clearly BRS would not have been in the game from the start meaning they would have had no chance of landing Qatar. Etihad and Emirates seem even less likely given the type of aircraft they use. I think that an ME3 route is essential for any airport that has pretensions to becoming a world leading regional airport, which is one of BRS's five aspirations (pillars as it puts it) in the notes that accompany the consultation process.

I imagine the airport has done some research in the background to come up with the decision not to include a runway extension within the consultation. With everything else (ie terminal options, other infrastructure, extending the airport area and so on) they are seeking the public's views as well as those of partners including airlines, local business interests, local councils and others. If they have chosen to speak to airlines about the runway prior to the consultation - I don't know that they have but the question was posed - they might equally as well have done so with everything else and avoided the expense and time of consulting the public. I believe that CWL is in the process of updating its own master plan with no public consultation, using consultants working on that airport's behalf.

The A38 was diverted nearly 20 years ago in an arc away to the east (ie away from the runway), I believe mainly to accommodate the installation of Cat3b ILS. I don't know the cost of dropping it into a 150-metre tunnel.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I'm not saying that there should definitely be a runway extension. I am saying that I think it should be included in the consultation so that the matter can be thrashed out in detail and publicly. If that happened and the result remained the status quo then of course I would respect the decision. As I said earlier, the current master plan states that the runway issue will be reviewed when the master plan is updated.

I've said more than enough about this subject (runway) for the time being so I'll give it a rest.

 

[Jerry]

I believe that CWL is in the process of updating its own master plan with no public consultation, using consultants working on that airport's behalf.

It is a pity there wasn't a consultation for CWL.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Radio Bristol did a piece on the consultation process which ends today during their breakfast programme today. Simon Earles the airport's planning and sustainability director gave a brief summary of the process. He said he was pleased with the way it had gone although I was a bit surprised at the numbers of public participants that he quoted.

He said that 500 people had attended the 13 drop-in events around the area and 1,500 had responded with their views via the questionnaire. Given that the former county of Avon area, roughly analogous to Greater Bristol, has a population of over one million with adjacent parts of Somerset and Wiltshire close to the airport too, that doesn't seem that many although I don't know how it compares with an average in this type of thing, if there is a known average.

It might be wondered that if only 0.2% of the population in that area is concerned enough about airport expansion (whether for it or against it) to take the trouble of finding out more and making their views known, is it (a) worth the trouble and expense of the consultation and (b) is there really a strong feeling either way within the overwhelming majority of the population about the airport? In other words, do people really worry whether it handles 2 mppa or 20 mppa so long as it's there if they want to use it?

There is also a piece in today's Bristol Post about the airport's proposed expansion.

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/mayor-marvin-rees-is-having-1116930

The Green Party councillor is having a go at the city's elected Mayor (a Labour man so there is probably an element of party politicking) at his support for BRS expansion whilst at the same time undertaking a reduction of greenhouse gases in the city which the Green man says are incompatible. At least Mayor Rees supports the airport, although it's not within his immediate area of responsibility, unlike his Independent predecessor who was lukewarm at best and who before he became a mayoral candidate was not in favour of airport expansion.

This might have been the same Green councillor who appeared in the Radio Bristol piece this morning - I didn't catch his name. He basically came out with the same argument about noise and pollution. He did make a reasonable point in my view that many people using the airport are holidaymakers spending money abroad instead of in the local economy which is true of most, probably all regional airports. The interviewer is not a Jeremy Paxman and she didn't challenge him on a number of points, one of which would be that people would still fly abroad on holiday if there was no Bristol Airport and would use other airports and at the same time embark on longer car journeys in many instances to reach them.

 

[tpm]

2000 responses / participants seems quite decent for a pre-consultation. It is really quite hard to get people to participate or comment on anything unless it affects them directly financially, environmentally or takes away their parking spaces

 

[TheLocalYokel]

2000 responses / participants seems quite decent for a pre-consultation. It is really quite hard to get people to participate or comment on anything unless it affects them directly financially, environmentally or takes away their parking spaces

Thanks for that which goes some way to answering my point about not having an average against which to measure the BRS response. I think it still begs the question whether a public consultation is worthwhile if so few participate (as a percentage of those affected or even who use the airport) - for whatever reason they choose not to. I know that many people will be unaware of the consultation despite local news media publicity so that has to be considered too.

 

[Jerry]

Thanks for that which goes some way to answering my point about not having an average against which to measure the BRS response. I think it still begs the question whether a public consultation is worthwhile if so few participate (as a percentage of those affected or even who use the airport) - for whatever reason they choose not to. I know that many people will be unaware of the consultation despite local news media publicity so that has to be considered too.

For BRS it's good PR as they are seen to be engaging with the public over there expansion plans. I suppose with these type of things it will only be the dedicated that turn up and i don't know what days they were held on but if they were weekdays it might have made it harder for some to go. Did they do an online version? As that might have got to a bigger audience.