Runway Extension Plans

[Jerry]

Bristol Airport runway expansion for long-haul flights a 'land grab' - BBC News https://share.google/0Pm9C75DpuT6DIDqY

 

[MrFenner]

Bristol Airport runway expansion for long-haul flights a 'land grab' - BBC News https://share.google/0Pm9C75DpuT6DIDqY

Has any airline actually come forward and said they’ll fly to/from there to the USA or ME if the runway were to be extended, that we know of?

 

[Jerry]

Has any airline actually come forward and said they’ll fly to/from there to the USA or ME if the runway were to be extended, that we know of?

I don't think so. I'm sure Bristol would be talking to those type of airlines but also I do wonder if a longer runway would bring savings for their current based airlines as well.

 

[Aviador]

Has any airline actually come forward and said they’ll fly to/from there to the USA or ME if the runway were to be extended, that we know of?

The proposed runway extension was quite small wasn't it?

 

[tpm]

Yes, quite small (150m added to 2011m).

My layman's guess would be that while it's possible to operate planes like the B787 or A321XLR from the existing runway, it's probably quite borderline and airlines might have to run flights at less than full capacity (passengers or cargo) to make it work, and the extra starter strip would add enough runway to allow airlines to operate these types at full capacity which would make routes much more viable financially and operationally.

 

[Aviador]

Yes, quite small (150m added to 2011m).

My layman's guess would be that while it's possible to operate planes like the B787 or A321XLR from the existing runway, it's probably quite borderline and airlines might have to run flights at less than full capacity (passengers or cargo) to make it work, and the extra starter strip would add enough runway to allow airlines to operate these types at full capacity which would make routes much more viable financially and operationally.

Let’s start with this hysterical talk of a "land grab" mentioned in the article. What absolute rubbish. To describe a modest 150-metre runway extension as if it were some sort of territorial invasion is frankly embarrassing.

It’s typical of the anti-airport brigade. They’ll seize on any minor adjustment to spout on out their tired grievances about night flying noise, even when it’s entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand. The irony is it's non-stop noise from them.

As for the extension itself, while the Dreamliner is a different beast entirely, the A321XLR and 737MAX are already entirely capable with the current runway length. However, adding that extra 150 metres is operational common sense. It will provide improvements to vital safety margins and improve the efficiency for every aircraft that uses the airport.

The key benefits will come through performance enhancements for all current operators bringing enhanced reliability, greater flexibility during adverse weather and for aircraft with heavier payloads. While it isn't a "magic bullet" for a surge in long-haul routes, it makes the airfield significantly more robust and attractive.

The protesters are so busy looking for something to moan about that they’ve missed the point. This is a sensible, incremental upgrade for a modern infrastructure hub.

 

[MrFenner]

Let’s start with this hysterical talk of a "land grab" mentioned in the article. What absolute rubbish. To describe a modest 150-metre runway extension as if it were some sort of territorial invasion is frankly embarrassing.

It’s typical of the anti-airport brigade. They’ll seize on any minor adjustment to spout on out their tired grievances about night flying noise, even when it’s entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand. The irony is it's non-stop noise from them.

As for the extension itself, while the Dreamliner is a different beast entirely, the A321XLR and 737MAX are already entirely capable with the current runway length. However, adding that extra 150 metres is operational common sense. It will provide improvements to vital safety margins and improve the efficiency for every aircraft that uses the airport.

The key benefits will come through performance enhancements for all current operators bringing enhanced reliability, greater flexibility during adverse weather and for aircraft with heavier payloads. While it isn't a "magic bullet" for a surge in long-haul routes, it makes the airfield significantly more robust and attractive.

The protesters are so busy looking for something to moan about that they’ve missed the point. This is a sensible, incremental upgrade for a modern infrastructure hub.

So, what you’re saying is the matter of the environment and the land used for “nature” (also not owned by the airport?) is less important than the expansion a profit-hungry airport/business!?

I believe the issue is not the “land grab” but the fact they want to install lighting on common land which is not owned by them - yet they want to use it for their own benefit.

As an outsider I apologise for not gauging the full picture…

 

[Aviador]

So, what you’re saying is the matter of the environment and the land used for “nature” (also not owned by the airport?) is less important than the expansion a profit-hungry airport/business!?

I believe the issue is not the “land grab” but the fact they want to install lighting on common land which is not owned by them - yet they want to use it for their own benefit.

As an outsider I apologise for not gauging the full picture…

I understand the concern regarding common land, but it’s important to distinguish between commercial expansion and regulatory safety requirements.

The airport isn't seeking to "land grab" for profit. The airport is likely responding to mandatory international aviation safety standards. Approach lighting systems must extend a specific distance from the runway to ensure pilots can land safely during night-time or poor weather. If these lights aren't installed, the airport becomes a safety risk to both passengers and the local community below.

Furthermore, placing infrastructure on land not owned by the developer is a standard legal process (an easement) used for everything from water pipes to power lines. (I have one close to my house) In this case, the "benefit" isn't just for the business, it’s the fundamental requirement that allows the airport to remain a safe, operational, and regulated piece of public infrastructure.

 

[KARFA]

So, what you’re saying is the matter of the environment and the land used for “nature” (also not owned by the airport?) is less important than the expansion a profit-hungry airport/business!?

gosh, what a colourful framing of the issue

 

[dmrodgers]

Yes, quite small (150m added to 2011m).

My layman's guess would be that while it's possible to operate planes like the B787 or A321XLR from the existing runway, it's probably quite borderline and airlines might have to run flights at less than full capacity (passengers or cargo) to make it work, and the extra starter strip would add enough runway to allow airlines to operate these types at full capacity which would make routes much more viable financially and operationally.

LBA has a similar issue with its 2250m runway which does limit long haul operations if the weather is not ideal. Whilst the 787 and the A321XLR are capable of using the airfield at Leeds it does impose weight restrictions which would impact Bristol as well even after a small runway extension (still shorter than Leeds)

 

[forest1979]

I popped on to wish users a merry Xmas and saw this chat on the runway extension.. I’d only been thinking about this today after seeing the BBC article. Forgetting for a moment the common issue, I too thought surely they have aircraft and airlines in mind before committing to this. The XLR is surely going to become very popular for trans Atlantic and ME routes and many in operation now.
Re the runway, they could have gone all in and proposed a runway on stilts towards the other end like Madeira - now that would have been interesting!!!
Merry Xmas!

 

[Foxlimayankee]

The airport isn't seeking to "land grab" for profit. The airport is likely responding to mandatory international aviation safety standards. Approach lighting systems must extend a specific distance from the runway to ensure pilots can land safely during night-time or poor weather. If these lights aren't installed, the airport becomes a safety risk to both passengers and the local community below.

Furthermore, placing infrastructure on land not owned by the developer is a standard legal process (an easement) used for everything from water pipes to power lines. (I have one close to my house) In this case, the "benefit" isn't just for the business, it’s the fundamental requirement that allows the airport to remain a safe, operational, and regulated piece of public infrastructure.

If it will become a safety risk in the future, why is it not a safety risk now?
If it's not a safety risk now, then the whole reason for any changes is to expand the number or types of flights, to gain more passengers, which is therefore a business decision, not a safety decision.

Sorry, seriously... You cant compare essential infrastructure like water and power to an Airport runway.

 

[Aviador]

If it will become a safety risk in the future, why is it not a safety risk now?
If it's not a safety risk now, then the whole reason for any changes is to expand the number or types of flights, to gain more passengers, which is therefore a business decision, not a safety decision.

Sorry, seriously... You cant compare essential infrastructure like water and power to an Airport runway.

To suggest that something is either "safe" or "dangerous" with no middle ground is a bit of a binary trap. If you drive a car with tyres at the legal limit, it’s "safe" now, but you’re hardly going to argue against fitting new ones to increase your grip, are you?
Aviation operates on safety margins, not "just enough to survive." The current runway is safe for current operations under specific conditions. However, adding 150 metres isn't about fixing a "risk" it’s about increasing the buffer. It allows aircraft to operate with a greater margin for error during heavy rain, high winds, or mechanical hitches. Waiting for it to become a "risk" before acting is precisely the kind of reactive, short-sighted thinking that leads to disasters.

 

[Foxlimayankee]

To suggest that something is either "safe" or "dangerous" with no middle ground is a bit of a binary trap. If you drive a car with tyres at the legal limit, it’s "safe" now, but you’re hardly going to argue against fitting new ones to increase your grip, are you?
Aviation operates on safety margins, not "just enough to survive." The current runway is safe for current operations under specific conditions. However, adding 150 metres isn't about fixing a "risk" it’s about increasing the buffer. It allows aircraft to operate with a greater margin for error during heavy rain, high winds, or mechanical hitches. Waiting for it to become a "risk" before acting is precisely the kind of reactive, short-sighted thinking that leads to disasters.

That's a contradiction in itself.
The counteraction to unsafe landings is pilot judgement, aircraft limits and timely decision making to divert.
If it was not safe, the airfield would have been shut down a long time ago.
So there is a certain level of safeguarding already in place, for anything outside of that there is an alternative.
The runway extension isn't about eliminating risk, its simply about reducing the need for diversions (possibly), therefore a business decision, as the risk aversion is already in place, the diversion.
That applies all across the world, not just at BRS.

Where does risk aversion end? A 5 mile long, 500m wide runway? Just in case?

Does 150m extra on a runway plonked on top of a hill built for bad weather training, with a big hump in the middle really reduce the safety risk that much?

 

[Aviador]

I really don't understand the backlash. The proposed 150m extension remains within the current boundary of the airport. I accept new lighting columns would be outside the boundary (as they already are) but they take up such a small area. The impact would be minimal.

 

[Red Flyer]

The cynic in me is convinced there’s more than a little bit of jealousy and envy with a large amount of panic amongst the fans of a nearby state owned airport. In their haste to detract from the benefits of the extension they’ve been obsessed about landing aircraft without the effects and benefits the extension will bring to the take offs. In a time where airlines are trying to save money and reduce costs the runway length can make a huge difference.

 

[Jerry]

I really don't understand the backlash. The proposed 150m extension remains within the current boundary of the airport. I accept new lighting columns would be outside the boundary (as they already are) but they take up such a small area. The impact would be minimal.

I expect that residents have the concern that it's a tip of the iceberg and once they've expanded onto the common they'll be making the case for an even bigger runway extension.

The cynic in me is convinced there’s more than a little bit of jealousy and envy with a large amount of panic amongst the fans of a nearby state owned airport

Panic over what? An extra 150m isn't going to change things in the grand scale of things. It may well help airlines already based like Easyjet and Jet2 with longer routes but it's unlikely to be a deal breaker for an airline like Turkish or Qatar Airways or Emirates or possibly even TUI long haul. Bristol Airport challenge with them isn't the little airport to the west of it it's the giant to the east down the M4.

 

[Aviador]

The cynic in me is convinced there’s more than a little bit of jealousy and envy with a large amount of panic amongst the fans of a nearby state owned airport. In their haste to detract from the benefits of the extension they’ve been obsessed about landing aircraft without the effects and benefits the extension will bring to the take offs. In a time where airlines are trying to save money and reduce costs the runway length can make a huge difference.

Add 150m to the opposite side and you get a runway length comparable to Cardiff which isn't exactly the longest runway in the world but it offers more flexibility than Bristol does at the moment.