I read an article today suggesting that BRS's runway would be a brake on getting long haul routes so out of interest I looked at the runway lengths (the longest in each case where an airport has more than one) of the top 30 UK airports in terms of passenger numbers (as at August 2017 over a 12-month period).

I've listed the airports in descending order of runway length - in metres - with their position in the passenger number 'league table' shown in the right-hand column.

I'm not sure if this proves or disproves anything but at least it does show who has the long runways and who has the short runways.

Heathrow ……………….3902….1

Gatwick………...........3316….2

Birmingham……........3052….7

Manchester …………….3050….3

Stansted………...........3049….4

Prestwick………………....2986….25

East Midlands…………...2893…13

Doncaster-Sheffield...2893….20

Belfast Int……………....2780….10

Newquay……………......2744….27

Glasgow……………….....2665….8

Edinburgh……............2556….6

Cardiff …………………....2392….19

Newcastle ……………....2329….11

Liverpool ………………...2285….12

Bournemouth…………..2271….24

Leeds-Bradford ……….2250….15

Humberside …………….2196….30

Luton…………………… ...2162….5

Exeter …………………....2076….22

Bristol …………………....2011….9

Derry ………………..…...1969…29

Aberdeen ……………....1953….16

Inverness ……………....1887….23

Southend ……………....1856….21

Norwich……………….... 1841….26

Belfast City………….....1829….17

Southampton…………..1723….18

London City …………….1508….14

Sumburgh ……………...1500….28
 
It makes you wonder why they say they are going for long haul when the recent press articles say they are mainly a short haul airport and are not considering an even a modest runway extension at some point .
 
I read an article today suggesting that BRS's runway would be a brake on getting long haul routes so out of interest I looked at the runway lengths (the longest in each case where an airport has more than one) of the top 30 UK airports in terms of passenger numbers (as at August 2017 over a 12-month period).

I've listed the airports in descending order of runway length - in metres - with their position in the passenger number 'league table' shown in the right-hand column.

I'm not sure if this proves or disproves anything but at least it does show who has the long runways and who has the short runways.

Heathrow ……………….3902….1

Gatwick………...........3316….2

Birmingham……........3052….7

Manchester …………….3050….3

Stansted………...........3049….4

Prestwick………………....2986….25

East Midlands…………...2893…13

Doncaster-Sheffield...2893….20

Belfast Int……………....2780….10

Newquay……………......2744….27

Glasgow……………….....2665….8

Edinburgh……............2556….6

Cardiff …………………....2392….19

Newcastle ……………....2329….11

Liverpool ………………...2285….12

Bournemouth…………..2271….24

Leeds-Bradford ……….2250….15

Humberside …………….2196….30

Luton…………………… ...2162….5

Exeter …………………....2076….22

Bristol …………………....2011….9

Derry ………………..…...1969…29

Aberdeen ……………....1953….16

Inverness ……………....1887….23

Southend ……………....1856….21

Norwich……………….... 1841….26

Belfast City………….....1829….17

Southampton…………..1723….18

London City …………….1508….14

Sumburgh ……………...1500….28

Thanks, TLY. Very interesting data regarding total runway length and 'league table positions'.
As I'm sure that you're aware, there are many other factors dictating aircraft operations from runways.
Two simple examples are 'TORA' (Take Off Run Available) and 'LDA' (Landing Distance Available).
Take TORA for instance. An aircraft can start it's take off run at the very start of the runway but may need to pass a local highpoint (eg a hill or building) at a certain altitude, thus possibly limiting an aircraft's take off weight (I remember MD-80s flying BHX to Tenerife having to stop enroute for fuel as they were weight limited from BHX's then 8400ft runway).
With LDA, an aircraft approaching the same runway may have to land beyond a displaced threshold (therfore the initial section of the runway being unavailable) due to a highpoint on approach. On roll out however, the section of runway unavailable to the previous departing aircraft is available to the landing aircraft.
Add to this, other factors such as crosswind component and load and the whole issue becomes rather complicated.
Other factors that may effect 'league table' position, are 'type of operation' and 'date of runway extension'.
BHX is the obvious candidate for the most recent significant runway extension, but EMA has also had runway extensions in the not too distant past. Each airport however, have very different requirements. EMA, whilst having a commercial passenger operation it's the long haul parcel services that make use of the runway length. BHX is far more focused on commercial passenger services, but the relative 'newness' of the runway extension is yet to pay real dividends with long haul services.

Kevin
 
Thanks for that, Kevin.

BRS TORA is 1978 metres on 09 and 1938 metres on 27 according to one website I use.
LDA is 1938 metres on 09 and 1876 metres on 27.

Overall runway length 2011 metres.

BRS is also above 600 feet AMSL.
 
What was the consensus of the 737MAX operating long haul from Bristol?

Flydubai are further expanding into Europe with the MAX so assuming Bristol's runway is long enough, could they be a possibility? As well as Flydubai offering connections onto Emirates' network, their new MAX's also have a flat bed business class.
 
Some of the Caribbean Islands have long haul flights operating off relatively short runways. The famous Princess Juliana International Airport on the island of St Maarten has a runway length of 2300m with frequent long haul operations.

The Island of St Kitts has Bradshaw International Airport, and again this airport has frequent long haul operations with a runway length of 2439m

A relatively modest extension to the runway, even if just used for the take-off run would enable significantly more destinations to be served from the airport than the airport can currently offer.


This indicated a 400m extension or starter strip but even 300m would make a difference.
 
What was the consensus of the 737MAX operating long haul from Bristol?

Flydubai are further expanding into Europe with the MAX so assuming Bristol's runway is long enough, could they be a possibility? As well as Flydubai offering connections onto Emirates' network, their new MAX's also have a flat bed business class.


I was only just thinking about the same thing. Be good to get ...
 
I had a long chat today at one of the master plan consultation drop-in events. I spoke to several members of the team including the airport's head of aviation. I've just summarised the main points in the Airport Master Plan for the next 30 years thread.

That included the topics of long haul and the runway and, although the head of aviation might understandably have not wanted to give too much away because of commercial sensibilities, I gained the impression that long haul to NYC or the ME is not imminent. We talked about aircraft types that could use the runway to these sorts of places and he made the point that although a particular type of aircraft might be used by one airline at BRS another might not use it because of that airline's operational procedures that might for instance require a minimum runway length.

I asked about the MAX and neo types for long haul (particularly to the US east coast and to the ME) and again there was no clear-cut answer because of different airlines' operational stipulations.
 
That's interesting. So as an example Norwegian who have the MAX may not look at BRS because their operational requirements require a 7000 feet runway for TATL yet WestJet with the same aircraft may only require a 6500 feet runway. So it may well be then that in the short term BRS best chance of new long haul routes is TUI adding more and possibly even basing a 787.
 
That's interesting. So as an example Norwegian who have the MAX may not look at BRS because their operational requirements require a 7000 feet runway for TATL yet WestJet with the same aircraft may only require a 6500 feet runway. So it may well be then that in the short term BRS best chance of new long haul routes is TUI adding more and possibly even basing a 787.
From what was said today I think they are looking at TUI to expand with more long haul in the future with the concern that APD devolution might interfere with that. As for scheduled long haul, putting aside for a minute operational capabilities, I will be very interested to read the new master plan when eventually published to see what it says about long haul scheduled routes. The current one, published over a decade ago, suggests that there would be demand for about four and it mentioned Dubai, New York (already being flown at the time), Washington and another US airport, possibly Atlanta.

I doubt that this judgement will have changed much. The head of aviation didn't quite share my view that a Norwegian-type operation to a tertiary US airport would not be popular as connectivity would be limited or non-existent. Nevertheless, he did say they were not in the game of getting a scheduled long haul route just to be able to say they had one. It would have to bring real benefit to the airport. I took this to mean, partly at least, that BRS will not be splashing out mega-pounds to a carrier merely for the cachet (as some would see it) of having a long haul scheduled route.

From a business point of view I can entirely see the sense in that.
 
I took this to mean, partly at least, that BRS will not be splashing out mega-pounds to a carrier merely for the cachet (as some would see it) of having a long haul scheduled route.
I suppose in a way that may be the difference between CWL and BRS. With CWL being government owned they may well look at giving money to a long haul carrier to bring a scheduled service to say NYC as a long term investment to bring in tourism, business and investment into the area whereas for the BRS owners it has to be an investment that brings them an even bigger return on their profits.
As for TUI it putting APD aside it would be interesting to see what other routes they think will work.
 
I suppose in a way that may be the difference between CWL and BRS. With CWL being government owned they may well look at giving money to a long haul carrier to bring a scheduled service to say NYC as a long term investment to bring in tourism, business and investment into the area whereas for the BRS owners it has to be an investment that brings them an even bigger return on their profits.
As for TUI it putting APD aside it would be interesting to see what other routes they think will work.
It is but the WG cannot just chuck money at an airline because that would be abusing its position as a state owner. Loans (even to itself) have to be repaid although there are ways of structuring them of course.

No actual TUI routes were mentioned today.
 
Willie Walsh, CEO of IAG, made a plea today for APD to be abolished. He said that if it was he would operate it with his long-haul airline Level from a number of UK airports including CWL.

It's not clear why he mentioned CWL (rather than BRS). I believe Level operates A330-200s,B 757s and B 767s. These aircraft ought to be able to reach the east coast of North America but Level already seems to have some routes from Europe to the west coast which clearly could not be accommodated from the BRS runway.

Given that Qatar didn't consider BRS because of operational reasons - I'm not saying they would necessarily have pitched up anyway - I'm increasingly coming to the view that BRS will not see many, if any, scheduled long-haul routes because of the airport's inadequate runway for such purposes. TUI is content to use it for its transatlantic long haul so users might have to be content with that.
 
I believe Level operates A330-200s,B 757s and B 767s.

The 757s & 767s are from Openskies which will stop operating this summer and be merged into Level. I imagine they will be using them in part to open their new base at Orly but in time I think the plan is to operate only the A330 - can the A330 operate into Bristol. Not as in runway length but taxiways, etc - its not too big or heavy is it?

If they have indeed been looking seriously at launching Level in the UK, they may have 'chosen' Cardiff over Bristol as they may want to launch both East and West coast of US flights. East Coast may be possible from Bristol, but I don't think West coast would be - maybe they both are from Cardiff?
 
Willie Walsh, CEO of IAG, made a plea today for APD to be abolished. He said that if it was he would operate it with his long-haul airline Level from a number of UK airports including CWL.
I'd be very surprised if Level or BA turned up at any regional airport even if APD was abolished.
 
The 757s & 767s are from Openskies which will stop operating this summer and be merged into Level. I imagine they will be using them in part to open their new base at Orly but in time I think the plan is to operate only the A330 - can the A330 operate into Bristol. Not as in runway length but taxiways, etc - its not too big or heavy is it?

If they have indeed been looking seriously at launching Level in the UK, they may have 'chosen' Cardiff over Bristol as they may want to launch both East and West coast of US flights. East Coast may be possible from Bristol, but I don't think West coast would be - maybe they both are from Cardiff?
BRS can accommodate the 330-200 and does from time to time, usually for rugby matches. West coast North America is not possible from BRS with a 330. East coast ought to be.

As I posted in #333 above I think that the BRS decision to leave the runway as it is will severely limit long haul scheduled routes in the future. Qatar could have operated its 787s to Doha but decided not to. So far TUI has taken a different view with its Florida, Mexico and Dominican Republic routes.
 
The Airbus A321LR made its maiden intercontinental flight recently , Paris to New York. Maybe this aircraft and the 737 max could offer Bristol the possibility of long haul ? But does anyone know if they can operate long range from the runway yet ?
Maybe it’s what the management team are banking on
 
I'd be surprised if BRS gets anyone new longhaul wise. I can see TUI adding more routes though .
 
The Airbus A321LR made its maiden intercontinental flight recently , Paris to New York. Maybe this aircraft and the 737 max could offer Bristol the possibility of long haul ? But does anyone know if they can operate long range from the runway yet ?
Maybe it’s what the management team are banking on
I think there is no clear consensus amongst the 'experts' about this from what I've read. The snag is that, although an aircraft type might be physically capable of using the BRS runway even without load penalty, airlines have different policies about runway length and other matters.

A glance at the current master plan published in 2006 shows that the airport was over-optimistc in its view of what the new generation of aircraft (notably the 787 and 350) would bring to BRS in terms of long-haul routes. Its passenger number projections for the next ten years turned out to be very accurate in terms of overall numbers, but when they are broken down into sectors the long-haul numbers are considerably higher than those that transpired.

In 2006 the airport forecast that by 2015 it would be handling 8.076 mppa (it was actually 6.781 mppa). However, its projection for 2020 was 9.271 mppa, which is actually likely to be above that. As a comparison CWL's 2006 master plan projected around 4.5 mppa by 2015 and EXT's up to 1.9 mppa by 2015.

BRS long haul projections were not as accurate: 157,000 scheduled long haul in 2015, surprisingly dropping to 134,000 in 2020 but rising to 234,000 in 2025; long haul charter projections were 178,000 in 2016, 232,000 in 2020 and 303,000 in 2025.
 
I find Bristol’s position on LH quite strange and really they probably shot themselves in the foot years ago by opting for lulsgate over Filton. Had the latter been the gateway for Bristol and the southwest I doubt we would have been having this conversation..
With brexit looming and the UK’s position being somewhat outward looking to the rest of the world I can’t see why it would pretty much kick the subject into the long grass. For me a ME link in particular is a link to the rest if the world and I would have thought that in itself would bring massive benefits to the area. I would have that as my main target over any link back to the US. Of course we have Qatar at CWL ( no idea yet how this will fair) but surely for the whole of Wales and SW there is room for competition? TUI LH is nice but it is just that, nice for your holiday traffic.
I’m hoping that in the new master plan there is some proper thought and rationale on its LH position. I fear that the deep down all the noise that a small runway extension might bring is actually one of the real reasons it isn’t looking to progress.. just my thoughts.
 

Upload Media

Upgrade Your Account

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.



Forums4aiports
Subscribe

NEW - Profile Posts

9 trips in 9 days done 70 miles walked and over 23-00 photos taken with a large number taken at 20mph or above. Heavy rain on 1 day only
5 trips done and 45 miles walked,. Also the RAF has had 4 F35B Lightning follow me yesterday and today....
My plans got altered slightly as one of the minibus companies had to cancel 3 trips and refunded me but will be getting nice discount when I rebook them.
wondering why on my "holidays" I choose to get up 2 hours earlier than when going to work. 6 trips in 6 days soon coming up with 3 more days to sort out

Trending Hashtags

Advertisement

Back
Top Bottom
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock