Infrastructure, Construction & Developments

[Ray Finkle]

Heard a rumour yesterday and want to know if anyone has heard anything similar. I heard that hangar no.2 will be knocked down and that a new west terminal/T3 will be built.

Seeing as it seems to be pretty much out there now, I've heard similar rumours from a couple of different people.

The ones I've heard are that H2 and the Elmdon Terminal (I thought it was listed?) are to be demolished with a new terminal constructed on the site. Apparently there are to be no air bridges but there will be plenty of parking stands for aircraft, there would also be a new car park built.

Apparently there are two airlines aiming for big expansion at Birmingham over the next couple of years and they are pushing for demo to start as early as next year.

Make of it what you will, as always until it's confirmed it is just nothing more than rumour. It will be interesting to see what the master plan reveals as from the noises being made I'd always assumed that the Elmdon site was earmarked for a small cargo facility.

 

[jfy1999]

Apparently there are two airlines aiming for big expansion at Birmingham over the next couple of years and they are pushing for demo to start as early as next year.

Which two airlines do you think those could be Ray?

 

[Hassaan]

It's pretty easy to contact Mr. Kehoe so you can easily run it past him if you wish. It looks pretty good. As for the Elmdon Terminal being demolished for a new terminal, which carriers would be likely to use that side of the airport?

 

[Ray Finkle]

Which two airlines do you think those could be Ray?

I'd rather not say at this time, simply because as far as I'm aware it is just hearsay at the moment and I'd rather not fill people with false hope of something that may not happen. Hopefully we may hear something more substantial soon.

I just put it out there as this rumour now seems to have come from several different sources so I wondered if there may be others that have heard similar?

As ever time will tell.

 

[Kevin Farnell]

No air bridges would imply a dedicated low cost terminal. Being on the western apron, would make passenger transfers difficult, so I would think this rules out Flybe.
The dedicated bus road would now make more sense. I'd imagine there would be a very frequent service to get people to and from the station.

It would be very sad to see the old Elmdon terminal demolished. I did hear something a few years back about getting it de-listed (if that can be done?), so that it could be demolished for airport development.

Kevin

 

[IanFarquharson]

They have decided to repaint the old terminal and I am hearing it has a reprieve for another 5 years

 

[Paulsstrange]

They have decided to repaint the old terminal and I am hearing it has a reprieve for another 5 years

Ian pleased to hear this its an amazing part of our history.

I guess if they wanted to and planned it correctly the could build round or to the side of it or even incorporate it !

 

[JENNYJET]

Is it beyond the capabilities of architects to incorporate the Elmdon structure into a new expanded purpose built terminal for skinflint carriers that ask passengers to walk to the aircraft across the apron as I once did for a BA flight to Belfast in the rain? Climbing up to board the 1-11 was joyous, smelling the fumes of jet fuel, in awe of the Wardair DC-10 parked up by the old hangar...this was a good time.

The new BBC building in London managed to graft a new facility onto the original and it looks good.

The new airport has maxed out available space unless it relocates the fire station and builds along side the railway up to as far as runway threshold so the old site needs remodeling to enable the airport to expand further. Terminal space is what we need to accommodate 2 or 3 A380 services and some airlines will need new facilities.

The short haul operator can move to Elmdon with their B737's and Airbuses leaving the long haul operator to use the international facilities. A tunnel or new monorail link could facilitate any transfer traffic but it needs the will to do it and get it done.

 

[Ray Finkle]

I'd love it if the Elmdon building could be incorporated into a new terminal, it would be a shame to see it go.

If it has got a five year reprieve then I guess it'll either be looked after or left to crumble even more. From the first idea through to actual opening I guess five years could be about right for a potential new terminal?

I'm looking forward to seeing what the master plan contains.

 

[Seasider]

I think the Elmdon terminal is iconic, I can remember straining to get aircraft regs from the spiral staircase in the late 60's. When I stayed in Birmingham on business in 1980 I used to eat in the airport restaurant which had a great view of the apron.

 

[Hassaan]

What is the old terminal currently used for? I think if they re-opened it for passenger operations again I think it could work.

On a different note, the drop-off road/area (which has been barricaded off), do you think that could be put to use again? Although to be fair I don't know if any of the major airports have drop-off areas anymore.

 

[Brummiegem]

Gate 43(inside),or gate 42(outside)is now also getting the enclosed lounge treatment.
This means most of the gates along the international pier will have their own enclosed lounge.
As far as I am aware,the only ones not to have their own lounge are gates 42/1,where the Stobart aircraft park,and gates 55 and 56(inside numbers).
Various flights use 55,(not sure what the outside gate number is).
The curious one is gate 56,as this is the Air India gate.A stand that can take a wide body aircraft,and also an important service for BHX,but doesn't have it's own lounge at the moment.
I wonder if this will change in the future??

 

[nwoody2001]

I suspect it all depends on the demands of the airline that use them. BHX invested a lot of money into the International ier and as such will want as much flexibility from it as possible. Consequently they wont want to put a dedicated lounge on it for a specific airline unless they request it. EK and QR obviously have!!

 

[JENNYJET]

I suspect it all depends on the demands of the airline that use them. BHX invested a lot of money into the International ier and as such will want as much flexibility from it as possible. Consequently they wont want to put a dedicated lounge on it for a specific airline unless they request it. EK and QR obviously have!!

Would Air India want to invest in a dedicated lounge at BHX whilst on a daily rotation of a Dreamliner?

 

[Brum X]

Im not really a technical person but on the dried fruit forum one of there posters has made a comment that due to the airport making a hash of the draining system under the Runway 33 runway extension, it is likely that BHX will never be able to achieve CAT111 again. Does anybody have any more information on this and the possible consequences for the airport and its operations ??

 

[User001]

I expect heads will roll with an error like this.

The runway extension at the 33 end has been the centrepiece of mr Kehoes grand plan of being 'an LHR alternative', and now, airlines can't even use the ILS.

Normal day to day operations should be fine, it will still allow auto land. The issue however, is the 33 is the preffered runway direction, and the most used. Therefore, is low visibility in any form hits, then it slows the operation right down.

One thing that will come of it, is that on days where low visibility sends diverts all over the country, it's unlikely BHX will see that many diverts, certainly not on the levels seen in the past. ATC will want to protect their own operation, so apart from being able to squeeze in a divert if there is a gap in BHX arrivals, the days of mass BA aircraft for example, are gone for now.

It will be interesting to see how BHX can rectify this, I have heard that it could take a full closure of BHX for up to 2 weeks to fully rectify the issue, whatever that issue is.

 

[Brum X]

Thanks for the information User001

 

[JENNYJET]

Rather than complete closure, a great deal of very expensive night works upon the affected area but I assume the unextend section of R33 remains serviceable? And continues to allow diversionary traffic to boot?

 

[User001]

The level of work required means that the work could not be done in the confides of the night. This is a large scale earthworks, not a simple resurface which can be done overnight.

As for working while the runway is still in use, the level of work requires means that it may not be possible, as the threshold would have to be displaced so much, there would be barely any runway left to use! You certainly wouldn't be able to get the A380 off it, even if it's just to Dubai.

Diversions in the sense I mean couldn't take place either as until the work is complete and the ILS calibrated, it's still just CATI and that's the issue.

 

[jfy1999]

I guess it would be too hazardous for aircraft to use RWY 15 all the time and make tail wind landings and take offs when necessary??