I agree the terminals will look good.Positives
The departure lounge extension looks fantastic. Lots of natural light in the mezzanine level and a very much needed expansion of the restaurant offer. Really looking forward to this 👍
I also think that the revamped check in hall looks very impressive. It is clean, fresh, modern and a far cry from what it is now. Looking at the image below it appears that the airline ticket desks are to be removed or located which will hopefully make the space much brighter and give much more space.
Birmingham: Airport Master Plan 2018
- Thread starter Ray Finkle
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Use this prefix for new threads for Birmingham Airport
- Moderator
- #22
They do say they are aiming to increase the volume of low cost traffic. Although I have thought a few times that it would take nothing short of flybe going bust to convince easyJet to set up here. Maybe that wouldn't be so bad because EZY could operate domestic flights as well as a much wider range of European destinations.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #23
Negatives
The picture of the HS2 people mover is horrific and more like something that I'd expect to find in Stechford station. With the master plan making such a fuss over a predicted increase in business travel and how vital it is to have smooth connectivity onto the high speed network are people really expected to exit the building then haul their luggage to the platform?
The people mover needs a similar set up to the current air rail link where it is integrated into the building, speed is key if we really want to capture some of the London market and this seems severely disjointed. What makes it even worse is they are planning to funnel T2 arrivals into T1 immigration yet the new arrivals area is shown as T2?
I really hope that it is just indicative but a new terminal to the south, or even an extension of T2, could have accommodated this along with some more much needed terminal space.
The picture of the HS2 people mover is horrific and more like something that I'd expect to find in Stechford station. With the master plan making such a fuss over a predicted increase in business travel and how vital it is to have smooth connectivity onto the high speed network are people really expected to exit the building then haul their luggage to the platform?
The people mover needs a similar set up to the current air rail link where it is integrated into the building, speed is key if we really want to capture some of the London market and this seems severely disjointed. What makes it even worse is they are planning to funnel T2 arrivals into T1 immigration yet the new arrivals area is shown as T2?
I really hope that it is just indicative but a new terminal to the south, or even an extension of T2, could have accommodated this along with some more much needed terminal space.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #24
The image below is where it all falls down for me.
Aside from the departure lounge extension (which is already approved and about to start) there is ZERO expansion to the footprint of the terminal buildings! Did they not learn any lessons from S17 and the sheer chaos that was seen at certain peak times?? Even now T1 is falling apart at the seams and the new extension won't take much to fill up. It also states that there is to be ONE more baggage belt added in the next 15 years! Again, have they not learnt anything from the past?
I am genuinely disappointed that there is no terminal expansion to the south but what is even more worrying is even the high pax growth option just says that more terminal space will be in the form of another three story extension to T1? Seriously? Just how many more bolt on's can it take?
I see two new wide body stands at the end of the 70's, two more at the end of the pier and two at the end of T2, all remote! If they are serious about expanding long haul and getting the likes of Cathay in do they really think they'd be happy for their premium passengers to board their shiny new aircraft via steps? In rainy Britain? Even a short extension to the pier to provide two more contact stands would have been something!
Most of the new stands also seem to rely on the new parallel taxiway, something which I have seen in every single master plan over the years but it has yet to come to fruition. What is even more concerning is the master plan doesn't envisage this until 2029 - 2033 and even then states 'There may be a requirement to complete the Airport’s parallel taxiway to accommodate the increase in flights and stand capacity at the Airport'. May be a requirement? Well without it how can those stands get built as halving the taxiway access could cause huge backlogs across the airfield!?
Whilst a huge new dual runway airport by HS2 was probably a dream too far I at least expected an extension of the apron to the south and more importantly some much needed extra terminal space. As it is this appears to be a hugely expensive makeover.
To me it's not a master plan it's simply rearranging the deckchairs.
Aside from the departure lounge extension (which is already approved and about to start) there is ZERO expansion to the footprint of the terminal buildings! Did they not learn any lessons from S17 and the sheer chaos that was seen at certain peak times?? Even now T1 is falling apart at the seams and the new extension won't take much to fill up. It also states that there is to be ONE more baggage belt added in the next 15 years! Again, have they not learnt anything from the past?
I am genuinely disappointed that there is no terminal expansion to the south but what is even more worrying is even the high pax growth option just says that more terminal space will be in the form of another three story extension to T1? Seriously? Just how many more bolt on's can it take?
I see two new wide body stands at the end of the 70's, two more at the end of the pier and two at the end of T2, all remote! If they are serious about expanding long haul and getting the likes of Cathay in do they really think they'd be happy for their premium passengers to board their shiny new aircraft via steps? In rainy Britain? Even a short extension to the pier to provide two more contact stands would have been something!
Most of the new stands also seem to rely on the new parallel taxiway, something which I have seen in every single master plan over the years but it has yet to come to fruition. What is even more concerning is the master plan doesn't envisage this until 2029 - 2033 and even then states 'There may be a requirement to complete the Airport’s parallel taxiway to accommodate the increase in flights and stand capacity at the Airport'. May be a requirement? Well without it how can those stands get built as halving the taxiway access could cause huge backlogs across the airfield!?
Whilst a huge new dual runway airport by HS2 was probably a dream too far I at least expected an extension of the apron to the south and more importantly some much needed extra terminal space. As it is this appears to be a hugely expensive makeover.
To me it's not a master plan it's simply rearranging the deckchairs.
- Moderator
- #25
The more I think about this the more I think it is a waste of time, space and money.Negatives
The picture of the HS2 people mover is horrific and more like something that I'd expect to find in Stechford station. With the master plan making such a fuss over a predicted increase in business travel and how vital it is to have smooth connectivity onto the high speed network are people really expected to exit the building then haul their luggage to the platform?
The people mover needs a similar set up to the current air rail link where it is integrated into the building, speed is key if we really want to capture some of the London market and this seems severely disjointed. What makes it even worse is they are planning to funnel T2 arrivals into T1 immigration yet the new arrivals area is shown as T2?
I really hope that it is just indicative but a new terminal to the south, or even an extension of T2, could have accommodated this along with some more much needed terminal space.
Why do they need to demolish the AirRail at all? It runs over multiple busy carparks and access roads and I can't see how they could demolish it without any disruption. They could simply build a people mover between HS2 and a revamped International, making sure that the walk between the two is as short as possible. That would save them the cost of demolition, as well as a significant percentage of the budget for the new track.
Kevin Farnell
Honorary Member Of Forums4airports
I find it very disappointing. No terminal expansion for the next 15 years!. I was expecting to see something and also the remote pier built down the centre of the remote stands.
BHX has been crirticised for not developing in the 1970's, which allowed neighbouring airports to gain a lead. At this rate, I can see BHX being overtaken by BRS.
I realise that money is not limitless, but more ambition is needed. They state that their 'ambition is to become one of Europe's leading regional airports'. Stagnation will not achieve this!
Kevin
BHX has been crirticised for not developing in the 1970's, which allowed neighbouring airports to gain a lead. At this rate, I can see BHX being overtaken by BRS.
I realise that money is not limitless, but more ambition is needed. They state that their 'ambition is to become one of Europe's leading regional airports'. Stagnation will not achieve this!
Kevin
Brum X
Elite Pro-Member
This so called masterplan is nothing more than a DAMP SQUIB
👎
👎
thunderchild
Well-Known Member
Anyone was else noticed the third airbridge from the A380 gate is not on the masterplan? Emirates going back to 777s?!?!?!?!
David_itl
Well-Known Member
- Jan 31, 2016
- 2,097
- 193
- 58
I'm afraid this post will make comparison between the BHX and MAN approaches for future numbers; it's not meant to be read as someone from Manchester rubbing BHX noses in it.
I'm disappointed with the slightly lower than expected passenger number forecast; it's as if the hierarchy does seem set in their ways of not being flexible in gaining airlines that would boost passenger numbers and jobs in greater amounts that a "prestige" service. Let's just consider this: 5 million more passengers in 15 years forecast. The reality: 2.8 million passengers added in the space of 2 years from 2015 to 2017. I just cannot work out how they've derived this forecast. MAN hit first hit 18 million passengers back in 2000 then after the recession took swathes of passengers away, again in 2011. Now MAN is looking to be 28 million in 2018 i.e. with 10 million more passengers in the space of 7 years.
With the indecision of boosting London capacity this master plan should have set out a stall to claw back the numbers currently using LHR/LGW and to a lesser degree MAN. Based on the local catchment and airlines unable to boost London frequencies so branching further out into the country and use HS2 for any London bound passengers, I would have thought that developing plans for the Terminals to host at least 21m or 22m passengers by 2033 should have been the objective.
MAN had been consistently projecting 55 million passengers by 2035 with the introduction of the 2nd runway back in 2003. However, a lot of the pronouncements recently have been gearing for 45 million to 50 million passengers. In other words, at least 17 million to be added. Or effectively growing by the projected total for BHX at the end of the forecast period. Consequently combining the desire to smarten up the airport, easing airfield congestion and allowing it to be more befitting a leading European airport saw the launch of MANTP. What BHX needs are similar visionaries but I'm not sure that they are actively seeking them.
I'm disappointed with the slightly lower than expected passenger number forecast; it's as if the hierarchy does seem set in their ways of not being flexible in gaining airlines that would boost passenger numbers and jobs in greater amounts that a "prestige" service. Let's just consider this: 5 million more passengers in 15 years forecast. The reality: 2.8 million passengers added in the space of 2 years from 2015 to 2017. I just cannot work out how they've derived this forecast. MAN hit first hit 18 million passengers back in 2000 then after the recession took swathes of passengers away, again in 2011. Now MAN is looking to be 28 million in 2018 i.e. with 10 million more passengers in the space of 7 years.
With the indecision of boosting London capacity this master plan should have set out a stall to claw back the numbers currently using LHR/LGW and to a lesser degree MAN. Based on the local catchment and airlines unable to boost London frequencies so branching further out into the country and use HS2 for any London bound passengers, I would have thought that developing plans for the Terminals to host at least 21m or 22m passengers by 2033 should have been the objective.
MAN had been consistently projecting 55 million passengers by 2035 with the introduction of the 2nd runway back in 2003. However, a lot of the pronouncements recently have been gearing for 45 million to 50 million passengers. In other words, at least 17 million to be added. Or effectively growing by the projected total for BHX at the end of the forecast period. Consequently combining the desire to smarten up the airport, easing airfield congestion and allowing it to be more befitting a leading European airport saw the launch of MANTP. What BHX needs are similar visionaries but I'm not sure that they are actively seeking them.
- Moderator
- #30
I have submitted several questions on the feedback form regarding the above.
It's a great opportunity for us forumers to have a say on the development of our local airport and the management will be giving a public response to all the feedback they receive. Who knows, they might listen to us!
Otisblue
Active Member
Reading the Masterplan today reminded me of watching the Blues under Rowett, nowhere near bold or ambitious enough.
There are a few things i like about it.....
- Focus on improving customer service and the passenger experience
- Commitment to refurbish the Elmdon terminal
- Recognition of road access issues
- Commitment to incentive airlines to start North America/China/India links
- The artist impression of the new Departure lounge
What i don't understand......
- The entry and exit taxiway changes to increase runway capacity from 40 to 50 movements per hour - Why leave it out of this plan ?
- Why no terminal extension of the South Terminal. If the stands are being re-configured, why not extend the terminal out ?
HS2 / International people mover.......
I think the plan on this is rubbish. There is no forecast in the plan as to how many passengers will use the HS2 / airport link. When you look at the passenger forecast graphs there is no additional increase in 2026 for when HS2 opens. So are the planners actually not expecting HS2 to add any air passengers. As i understand it, when HS2 opens in 2026, there will just be London to Birmingham and vice versa without any intermediate stops.....happy to be corrected on that. So are people really going to fly to BHX and then get HS2 to Euston, or are Londoners really going to get HS2 to BHX and fly out ? I just cant see it myself. So, i am with jfy1999 on this. The HS2 link only needs to go to International. There will be loads of people wanting to go to the NEC, or even International to get connecting trains. If they want to get to the airport, transfer to the air/rail link.
What i would like to have seen included........
The lack of land for expansion was mentioned a number of times, but what struck me was there is absolutely no creative or out of the box thinking in relation to use of the existing available land. I would have liked to have seen plans for the Regus building and Car Park 2/3 to be demolished. Extend the terminal as far as the railway line. As mentioned by others, add the pier to go parallel to the railway line. From the terminal extension build a link building to the international railway station. I don't think the air/rail link is now fit for purpose. It is close to capacity at times now, and i would plan to demolish it. I would replace it with a people mover that routes along the new link building to the terminal. Have a stop at North Terminal, and then carry on to the South Terminal. Have a stop there. I would then carry it onto Car Park 5 as well. Save all of the Car Park 5 bus journeys that currently take place. If anybody has been to Detroit and the indoor people mover they have there, that is the type of thing i am talking about. No doubt this would cost, but I think it would improve the passenger experience and flow of passengers immensely.
Car parks...as a lot of the rail stations now have, ( eg Tamworth, Four Oaks ) added another level to the car parks. this could be done to car park 5 and car park 7.
The current car parks at the airport and International are operated by NCP. These could be combined into a single pricing structure so airport customers could park at International and vice versa. Hopefully this would give better utilization of the space, and the international car park to the south of the international multi storey could be converted into a multi storey to add capacity.
If you did that, I don't think you would need the proposed car park at the back of the Monarch hangar, and therefore save all of the bus journeys that that car park will produce.
Some mention of fixing the 33 ILS
Andy Street.......
Today, i checked Andy Street's manifesto for the airport that he fought the election on. There were 5 bullet points, and these two stood out.....
- Support the airport in increasing the number of destinations you can fly to, including securing direct flights to China and other emerging markets
- Support the Solihull Council Urban Growth Company's proposals for airport growth and the co-location of the High Speed Two Station and the new airport terminal.
I wonder if the consultation period will result in any major changes......not holding out any hope.
There are a few things i like about it.....
- Focus on improving customer service and the passenger experience
- Commitment to refurbish the Elmdon terminal
- Recognition of road access issues
- Commitment to incentive airlines to start North America/China/India links
- The artist impression of the new Departure lounge
What i don't understand......
- The entry and exit taxiway changes to increase runway capacity from 40 to 50 movements per hour - Why leave it out of this plan ?
- Why no terminal extension of the South Terminal. If the stands are being re-configured, why not extend the terminal out ?
HS2 / International people mover.......
I think the plan on this is rubbish. There is no forecast in the plan as to how many passengers will use the HS2 / airport link. When you look at the passenger forecast graphs there is no additional increase in 2026 for when HS2 opens. So are the planners actually not expecting HS2 to add any air passengers. As i understand it, when HS2 opens in 2026, there will just be London to Birmingham and vice versa without any intermediate stops.....happy to be corrected on that. So are people really going to fly to BHX and then get HS2 to Euston, or are Londoners really going to get HS2 to BHX and fly out ? I just cant see it myself. So, i am with jfy1999 on this. The HS2 link only needs to go to International. There will be loads of people wanting to go to the NEC, or even International to get connecting trains. If they want to get to the airport, transfer to the air/rail link.
What i would like to have seen included........
The lack of land for expansion was mentioned a number of times, but what struck me was there is absolutely no creative or out of the box thinking in relation to use of the existing available land. I would have liked to have seen plans for the Regus building and Car Park 2/3 to be demolished. Extend the terminal as far as the railway line. As mentioned by others, add the pier to go parallel to the railway line. From the terminal extension build a link building to the international railway station. I don't think the air/rail link is now fit for purpose. It is close to capacity at times now, and i would plan to demolish it. I would replace it with a people mover that routes along the new link building to the terminal. Have a stop at North Terminal, and then carry on to the South Terminal. Have a stop there. I would then carry it onto Car Park 5 as well. Save all of the Car Park 5 bus journeys that currently take place. If anybody has been to Detroit and the indoor people mover they have there, that is the type of thing i am talking about. No doubt this would cost, but I think it would improve the passenger experience and flow of passengers immensely.
Car parks...as a lot of the rail stations now have, ( eg Tamworth, Four Oaks ) added another level to the car parks. this could be done to car park 5 and car park 7.
The current car parks at the airport and International are operated by NCP. These could be combined into a single pricing structure so airport customers could park at International and vice versa. Hopefully this would give better utilization of the space, and the international car park to the south of the international multi storey could be converted into a multi storey to add capacity.
If you did that, I don't think you would need the proposed car park at the back of the Monarch hangar, and therefore save all of the bus journeys that that car park will produce.
Some mention of fixing the 33 ILS
Andy Street.......
Today, i checked Andy Street's manifesto for the airport that he fought the election on. There were 5 bullet points, and these two stood out.....
- Support the airport in increasing the number of destinations you can fly to, including securing direct flights to China and other emerging markets
- Support the Solihull Council Urban Growth Company's proposals for airport growth and the co-location of the High Speed Two Station and the new airport terminal.
I wonder if the consultation period will result in any major changes......not holding out any hope.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #32
Andy Street has really disappointed me on this, I get the feeling that his main focus was on ensuring that a second runway was never in the plans. Now I agree that one is not going to be needed for a very long time (if ever) but if this is the compromise it's a huge let down. I wonder if moving land side to HS2 could have left the case for runway two open and this way it's completely off the table, especially with SMBC pushing their new garden city surrounding the station. The MP's for Solihull all seem very pleased that they and the residents of Meriden got their way.
Up until 18 months ago I believed we had one. Paul Kehoe was a hugely ambitious guy and I'm not sure that he would have accepted this.
His vision was a huge two runway airport connected to HS2 and a potential of circa 70 mppa. Okay maybe a dream too far but it shows massive ambition. It was then changed to a new single runway and a new terminal by HS2 with the current site being phased out, this still shows huge ambition. We then had no new runway but still brand new terminal facilities connected to HS2 allowing the current site to be one huge departure lounge. Then any new terminal was dropped for the 'forseeable' but an expansion of the current site was in order, if done properly this still could have been impressive. Now reality has struck we are getting a £500m makeover with very little expansion, ONE baggage belt and POSSIBLY a new taxiway.
When Paul Kehoe left this airport took a nosedive. Airlines have been leaving in droves, one or two aside the existing ones are cutting or stagnating and we have a huge amount of missing destinations. Did he see what was on the horizon? Did he see the lack of ambition for the future and decide not to be a part of it? I guess we'll never know but I remember his interview in which he said that he was set to meet with stakeholders to discuss plans for the future, in his opinion it could go one of two ways and he hoped that they opted for ambitious. Well now we know but if I was an airline boss this would not convince me one little bit that my airline had to have a presence at that airport.
Up until 18 months ago I believed we had one. Paul Kehoe was a hugely ambitious guy and I'm not sure that he would have accepted this.
His vision was a huge two runway airport connected to HS2 and a potential of circa 70 mppa. Okay maybe a dream too far but it shows massive ambition. It was then changed to a new single runway and a new terminal by HS2 with the current site being phased out, this still shows huge ambition. We then had no new runway but still brand new terminal facilities connected to HS2 allowing the current site to be one huge departure lounge. Then any new terminal was dropped for the 'forseeable' but an expansion of the current site was in order, if done properly this still could have been impressive. Now reality has struck we are getting a £500m makeover with very little expansion, ONE baggage belt and POSSIBLY a new taxiway.
When Paul Kehoe left this airport took a nosedive. Airlines have been leaving in droves, one or two aside the existing ones are cutting or stagnating and we have a huge amount of missing destinations. Did he see what was on the horizon? Did he see the lack of ambition for the future and decide not to be a part of it? I guess we'll never know but I remember his interview in which he said that he was set to meet with stakeholders to discuss plans for the future, in his opinion it could go one of two ways and he hoped that they opted for ambitious. Well now we know but if I was an airline boss this would not convince me one little bit that my airline had to have a presence at that airport.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #33
There has been a lot of good comments put forward so far and I think that most people feel pretty much the same way.
The consultation on this runs until 31st Jan and I would urge everyone to submit as much constructive feedback as possible to make their feelings known.
The contact details are
Online at:
www.bhxmasterplan.co.uk
E-mail us at:
[email protected]
Write to us at:
BHX Master Plan Team
Birmingham Airport
Diamond House
Birmingham B26 3QJ
The consultation on this runs until 31st Jan and I would urge everyone to submit as much constructive feedback as possible to make their feelings known.
The contact details are
Online at:
www.bhxmasterplan.co.uk
E-mail us at:
[email protected]
Write to us at:
BHX Master Plan Team
Birmingham Airport
Diamond House
Birmingham B26 3QJ
IanFarquharson
Elite-Member
Simon Richards did not come across at all well on TV talking about this, he actually said it was an ambitious plan to grow to 18m by 2033 !
BHX a much different place without PK
BHX a much different place without PK
At the airport now on my way to Egypt. Read quite few posts since yesterday and one thing will say the people of this region have been let down. Had this master plan be drawn 30 years ago then reaction would have been very different.. The region once again has been short changed by lack of vision and investment in major projects.
rollo
Elite-Member
- Aug 26, 2014
- 2,713
- 233
All pretty disappointing really my main concern are the teminals and the apparent lack of new airbridges. The North terminal is starting to show its age apart from the International pier which is superb, so far as the south terminal the old Euro Hub, well I think its pretty dingy and eventually will start to rival the old Digbeth bus stationwithout a seriuos revamp.
All in all disappointed.Not worthy of the second city by a mile.
All in all disappointed.Not worthy of the second city by a mile.
Otisblue
Active Member
Totally agree Rollo....
We now have two fairly anonymous people running this, Tim Clarke ( WHO ? ) chairman since July 2017. I think i have only ever seen one quote from him and I cant find him on social media. Simon Richards, acting MD, who pops up every now and again with the odd inane quote/appearance. These just seem like two yes men to the political leaders, as against PK, who was quite outspoken about his vision for the airport and also the region.
Both Andy Street and Caroline Spelman ( Meriden MP ) supported the 3rd runway at Heathrow and admitted this would mean leakage of passengers from the Midlands to Heathrow. Sort of says it all, that they are happy for us to travel from the Midlands to Heathrow, rather than focus on developing BHX.
It is a real shame that they don't redraw the City boundaries, so that the airport falls within the planning jurisdiction of Birmingham rather than Solihull, as I think that would result in a totally different, more ambitious masterplan.
Solihull has never been a friend of the airport, and this is mainly due to the noise impact around Marston Green and Hampton. The masterplan mentions new quieter aircraft like the NEO's and MAX's, but what it does not mention is the proposed battery driven aircraft that Easyjet ( sorry ) are committed to. Only read last week, that they are still planning entry into service for 2032, so within the lifetime of this plan. They might not achieve that date, but at some point, we will see this happen and when it does, i am sure there be a huge take up of these planes for short haul with the accompanying environmental benefits. I am sure all airports will then be clamouring to get these planes operating to them.
So,i don't think there is any political will to show any real ambition for the airport.
I find it extremely frustrating. This was a once in a lifetime opportunity for our political leaders to show leadership, vision and ambition ( a bit like our Birmingham forefathers ) and for me they have failed the region massively.
Coathanger16
Well-Known Member
Personally, I think the biggest problem with this master plan is the lack of ambition when it comes to their traffic forecast.
18mppa by 2033 would equate to a year on year growth of about 2.6%. To put that into perspective Heathrow, which has been effectively full, grew on average by 2.5% year on year since 2010.
For 18mppa what they have proposed would just about be able to cope, so in that respect I think this master plan is fair.
Between 2010 and 2017 (Pre-Monarch collapse) BHX grew by an average of 6.1% per year. Even between 2010 and 2018 (Forecast post-Monarch collapse) BHX will have grown an average of 4.6% per year. Under those forecasts by 2033 BHX would be handling 33.5mppa and 24.2mppa respectively. If the master plan had been drawn up with those figures in mind I expect we'd have seen something very different and something we'd all have been much happier with.
The only way I've found that the airport could have come up with 18mppa by 2033 is to look at average growth year on year since 2000 and this was 2.7% (2000 - 2018). However during this time we had the financial crisis which saw BHX lose almost 11% of its passengers. Is BHX management expecting Brexit & the third runway at LHR to have a similar impact on the airport?
View attachment 11212
Trying to stay positive if BHX hits 18mppa before 2033, surely it would force the airport to come up with another master plan?
18mppa by 2033 would equate to a year on year growth of about 2.6%. To put that into perspective Heathrow, which has been effectively full, grew on average by 2.5% year on year since 2010.
For 18mppa what they have proposed would just about be able to cope, so in that respect I think this master plan is fair.
Between 2010 and 2017 (Pre-Monarch collapse) BHX grew by an average of 6.1% per year. Even between 2010 and 2018 (Forecast post-Monarch collapse) BHX will have grown an average of 4.6% per year. Under those forecasts by 2033 BHX would be handling 33.5mppa and 24.2mppa respectively. If the master plan had been drawn up with those figures in mind I expect we'd have seen something very different and something we'd all have been much happier with.
The only way I've found that the airport could have come up with 18mppa by 2033 is to look at average growth year on year since 2000 and this was 2.7% (2000 - 2018). However during this time we had the financial crisis which saw BHX lose almost 11% of its passengers. Is BHX management expecting Brexit & the third runway at LHR to have a similar impact on the airport?
View attachment 11212
Trying to stay positive if BHX hits 18mppa before 2033, surely it would force the airport to come up with another master plan?
Similar threads
Remove Advertisements
Subscribe to help support your favourite forum and in return we'll remove all our advertisements. Your contribution will help to pay for things like site maintenance, domain name renewals and annual server charges.
Trending Hashtags
-
#LiverpoolJohnLennonWeight: 2
-
#Jet2Weight: 2
-
#liverpoolairportWeight: 2
-
#EasyJetRoutesWeight: 1
-
#laviationWeight: 1
-
#RYANAIRWeight: 1