Airport Master Plan for next 30 Years - Consultation

[TheLocalYokel]

It's interesting that most of these groups call on others to tell politicians/councils/etc about their opposition to a particular airport expanding. Perhaps suggests that these groups aren't as large, and therefore persuasive, as they'd like others to believe...

It doesn't appear to be as widely composed as the previous SBAE that drew in practical support from national and international environmental groups. That SBAE was once described by a national newspaper as one of the best funded, best organised and best connected of any of its type. They did have a much longer period to work themselves up into a serious pressure group because the airport's major expansion plans of the 'noughties' were put back a number of years with probably the recession being one reason for that.

This SBAE appears to be more grass routes and less 'professional'.

Inevitably, there is an element of hypocrisy. The local parish council centred on a large local village which broadly does not favour the airport being expanded neverthless used Ryanair's Beziers route to set up what has become a successful twinning venture with a town in France.

 

[Red Flyer]

When an anti airport group favours one airport over another it makes you wonder if they have an ulterior motive

 

[TheLocalYokel]

https://www.bristolairport.co.uk/about-us/news-and-media/news-and-media-centre/2019/1/yougov-survey

I'm not sure if we discussed the YouGov survey carried out on behalf of Bristol Airport in January.

Two questions were put in the survey.

The first question stated that the airport had submitted a planning application to increase capacity from 10 million to 12 million passengers a year without the need for an additional runway, runway extension or new terminal. Instead, existing facilities would be improved with examples given of such things as extending the existing terminals, building additional car parking facilities and improving internal road systems. Respondents were then asked if they were aware of these plans.

20% said they were and 80% said the were not.

The second question re-stated the planning application details as set out in question 1 but then went on to ask respondents to what extent they supported or opposed the airport increasing its passenger capacity in this way.

17% strongly support
54% tend to support
11% tend to oppose
6% strongly oppose
12% don't know

The survey was not a large one (217 South West residents) and is unweighted. However, it is remarkably close to straw polls carried out by local news media groups down the years when people were asked if they supported BRS expansion. Invariably the result was around 70% being in favour of expansion. Obviously the news media polls were unscientific but their consistent results suggest that around two thirds of local people are at least not against BRS expansion.

I believe that the North Somerset Planning Committee Meeting that will decide the current airport planning applications has been put back again with the latest date being 8 May this year.

That falls six days after the local elections. Currently North Somerset is predominantly Conservative with 36 of the 50 councillors belonging to that party. If the Conservative Party is 'punished' nationally at the local elections because of the Westminster Government's record it's not impossible that the North Somerset Conservative majority might be reduced significantly. Were that to happen and the make-up of the planning committee adjusted to take account of a new council there might be more opposition to the airport's applications than would probably be the case if the planning committee was Conservative-dominated.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/ambitious-mass-transit-hopes-rest-2682966

Bristol's elected mayor, Marvin Rees, says that plans for a mass transit system around Bristol will 'severely undermined' if the airport expansion does not go ahead.

This makes a change from the last time when the airport submitted its comprehensive expansion plans which were approved by North Somerset Council in 2011. At that time Bristol City Council, pre elected mayor days, was one of the bodies that formally objected to that expansion.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Although I have sympathy to a degree with some of the aims of the more responsible members of the Stop Bristol Airport Expansion group, any sympathy I might thave with the group as a whole melts away when they resort to factual lies and half-truths to support their arguments.

One of their latest blogs takes a swipe at Marvin Rees, Bristol's elected mayor, who broadly supports the airport's expansion.

In that blog it is says that BRS cannot handle large aircraft. The B787-8 and B787-9 both of which have operated out of BRS aren't exactly tiny aircraft.

It says that Ryanair has already cut flights to business destinations 'because they simply don't pay'. It gives no specifics bcause it would struggle to find one example out of BRS. I can't think of one.

It says that BRS 'has the shortest runway in the UK'. Clearly this well-researched (not) group has never heard of London City, Southampton or Southend, all UK top 20 airports, as well as other airports such as Norwich, Aberdeen and Inverness all of which have shorter runways than BRS.

It says that BRS is 'not fully authorised for bad weather operation'. That is true in the sense that Cat3b ILS only operates to runway 27 (it is said that the topography on approach to the reciprocal 09 could give rise to misleading indications). What Stop Bristol Airport Expansion doesn't say is that BRS is one of the very few airports in south-west Britain that has any Cat3 ILS - I think NQY might have it but cannot confirm.

It says that if Mayor Rees wants to divert traffic from Heathrow and Gatwick 'let him point them towards Cardiff, an international airport with a decent runway', with the clear implication that BRS is not an international airport.

In fact, the last point is what Stop Bristol Airport Expansion is really about. They don't really worry about increased emissions from flying so long as they are not caused by aircraft using BRS. Anywhere but in my back yard is their obvious but unstated credo.

To finish where I came in, if this group stuck to the truth whenever it is clearly factually identifiable, even if at times it went against their arguments, I would have a great deal more respect for them and their aims.

 

[Jerry]

It says that if Mayor Rees wants to divert traffic from Heathrow and Gatwick 'let him point them towards Cardiff, an international airport with a decent runway', with the clear implication that BRS is not an international airport.

Another error on their part as in general I believe Bristol doesn't see a lot of diverts because of how busy it is.

As for the 'international' airport tag what defines an international airport?
Is it having routes outside of the EU as Bristol and Cardiff both have them.

If you are going to run some sort of campaign like that the facts need to be correct.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Another error on their part as in general I believe Bristol doesn't see a lot of diverts because of how busy it is.

As for the 'international' airport tag what defines an international airport?
Is it having routes outside of the EU as Bristol and Cardiff both have them.

If you are going to run some sort of campaign like that the facts need to be correct.

I should have made it clearer. The allusion was to the mayor's support for the airport's wish to 'divert' to BRS (ie capture) some of the passenger traffic from/to the region that currently uses LHR.

SBAE believes that if passengers are to be captured from LHR they should be pointed towards CWL instead of BRS. It's part of their aim to ensure that BRS does not grow but, as I said in my previous post, they are not bothered about increased flights and increased emissions as long as they happen somewhere else.

 

[Foxlimayankee]

Another error on their part as in general I believe Bristol doesn't see a lot of diverts because of how busy it is.

As for the 'international' airport tag what defines an international airport?
Is it having routes outside of the EU as Bristol and Cardiff both have them.

If you are going to run some sort of campaign like that the facts need to be correct.

BRS does get it's share of diverts from various airports, CWL, EXT, SOU, LGW (mainly EZY) even en route diverts from the likes of LPL and MAN but it tends to be more during the daytime when stands are available. Overnight diverts are accepted until the stands are full, which without BM and further stand expansion means more overnight stands are available to accommodate nightstopping diverts.

 

[superking]

I see children from a primary school in Bristol has sent a dvd to children in schools from Ontario and also the Ontario teachers pension fund about BRS airport expansion. It puts the pension fund in a diffacult situation as it could cause problems between teachers and the pension fund.A guy I think from the school said why do they need more low cost airline movements as they don't make money,nothing said about pollution from this guy. I don't know where this guy got his information from about loss making airlines. You cant put all airlines in the loss making section or there would be no airlines or any new start ups.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I see children from a primary school in Bristol has sent a dvd to children in schools from Ontario and also the Ontario teachers pension fund about BRS airport expansion. It puts the pension fund in a diffacult situation as it could cause problems between teachers and the pension fund.A guy I think from the school said why do they need more low cost airline movements as they don't make money,nothing said about pollution from this guy. I don't know where this guy got his information from about loss making airlines. You cant put all airlines in the loss making section or there would be no airlines or any new start ups.

They aren't primary school children. I was looking at the Stop Bristol Airport Expansion (SBAE) website again at the weekend and I noticed the video. It was made by SBAE and features local young people mainly teenagers. They are said to be from schools in the area.

I switched on the Radio Bristol 0715 news summary this morning and their first item told listeners that some members of the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan (OTPP) are against BRS expansion. It was typical news media because the local BBC was running a story on the SBAE video, no doubt having been approached by someone in the organisation, and this was a catchy headline to whet people's interest, or so the BBC thought or hoped.

Here is a link to BBC Bristol's report.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-47948702

The reference to low cost airlines losing money is actually a comment about the airport saying it loses money from low cost airlines. Strictly speaking it does because only about a third of BRS's turnover comes from aviation matters. What SBAE doesn't say, perhaps because they don't know but I suspect they do know, is that business models of most of today's regional airports no longer rely on charges levied on airlines as was once the case, and when it was most of the smaller regionals like BRS had few flights and those that did operate saw huge fares.

BRS is no different from most other regional airports in that it makes much of its profits from the footfall generated by low cost air lines which feeds ancillary revenue streams such as car parking and retail outlets. By just mentioning BRS SBAE knows that most people have no interest or knowledge of aviation and assume that BRS is out of kilter with its peers in the way it conducts its business. It's not but it is more successful at it than many regional airports.

SBAE also quotes the percentage of business passengers and private transport users at the airport which, prima facie, shows the airport in a poor light. Again, if they had published details of most other airports in the country it would have shown that BRS is not dragging its heels in this in comparison with other airports.

OTPP has $191 billion of net investment and has stakes in BHX, LCY, BRU and CPH as well as BRS, so whether this video featuring local youngsters will have any effect on their strategy is probably unlikely. That said, some organisations might begin to reflect whether owning airports fits in with any ethical investment policy they might have. One of OTPP's perhaps quirkier UK investments is in the Westerleigh Group that runs cemeteries and crematoria throughout the country, with their headquarters based at the eponymous cemetery on the northern edge of Bristol.

 

[Jerry]

The reference to low cost airlines losing money is actually a comment about the airport saying it loses money from low cost airlines. Strictly speaking it does because only about a third of BRS's turnover comes from aviation matters. What SBAE doesn't say, perhaps because they don't know but I suspect they do know, is that business models of most of today's regional airports no longer rely on charges levied on airlines as was once the case, and when it was most of the smaller regionals like BRS had few flights and those that did operate saw huge fares.

I think people generally don't understand that these days airports don't make their money from landing fees but from anciliary revenue like car parking and that to make money off that they need to generate footfall. In the end SBAE for all their campaigning they aren't going to stop the expansion really.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I think people generally don't understand that these days airports don't make their money from landing fees but from anciliary revenue like car parking and that to make money off that they need to generate footfall. In the end SBAE for all their campaigning they aren't going to stop the expansion really.

Probably not but if the forthcoming council elections did have a catastrophic effect on the Conservatives, as some think might be the case nationally because of their Brexit handling, then a more liberal/green North Somerset Council might take a different view to the Conservatives who currently dominate the council.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

My wife told me that on the early evening local tv news (I think it was the BBC's Points West) one of the teenagers featured in SBAE's video asking for no BRS expansion was interviewed.

She admitted using the airport to fly but still believes it should not expand. An airport spokesman (my wife wasn't sure who it was) has invited the young woman to the airport to discuss her concerns.

Cutting back flying is a good headline grabber when it comes to addessing climate change but people will still fly when they believe that they need to.

We've discussed elsewhere that the actress Emma Thompson (or is every thespian an actor now? - last year I had a long chat with a male acquantance of mine who has appeared in minor roles in films who rebuked me for using the term actress) flew back from Los Angeles to join the climate protestors in London, a cause she says she believes in deeply. She has justified her journey on two counts: she needs to fly in connection with her job; she pays for her carbon footprint through such activities as planting trees.

She says she flies a lot less than she used to. So do I but not necessarily because I'm thinking primarlly of climate change. That's the point though. Her flying a lot less than she once did might still mean she flies more than I ever did. So even climate change activists, or at least some such as Emma Thompson, still fly when they consider it necessary. Therefore how can she tell anyone else to fly less if such flights are necessary for their job or way of like?

Just because she has cut her annual number of flights to x doesn't mean that everyone should. I might fly, say, x minus 100 times compared with Ms Thompson (or is she a Dame not that such things concern me). Does that give me the right to tell her that her x number of flights a year are too many and she should cut back by 100 beacause that's my limit?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

BRS's ambitious plans for the future might have run into a roadblock this afternoon. Following today's local elections results North Somerset Council's political face has changed to an extent that no-one anticipated.

Until yesterday the Conservatives held 36 of the 50 seats on the council, but not any more. They now hold just 13, with Independents the second largest group with 12 and the Lib Dems 11. Labour and the Greens have 6 and 3 respectively.

It was generally thought that the Conservatives would be sympathetic to the airport's planning applications. Now the planning committee is likely to consist of probably a majority of councillors who are against the airport's development.

The secretary of state could still 'call in' the planning applications but that's probably unlikely given this government's preference for local matters being decided locally. No doubt SBAE who wanted the application called in will now change its mind.

If the planning applications were refused by the local authority there is always an appeal path via the Planning Inspectorate, whose national headquarters is in Bristol - possibly a bit of irony there.

 

[Jerry]

So does this mean that the airport might not be able to go over the 10 million passengers mark? Or has that been approved so it just means that things like a 2nd terminal might not be able to go ahead?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

So does this mean that the airport might not be able to go over the 10 million passengers mark? Or has that been approved so it just means that things like a 2nd terminal might not be able to go ahead?

Raising the passenger limit from 10 mppa to 12 mppa is part of the current planning application.

At the moment a second terminal does not feature. To reach 12 mppa they would extend the current one - again. The process has become a bit bogged down because the draft master plan should have been produced by now. It's several months late according to the original timeline.

However, in tandem with the master plan process, the airport understandably (because time is of the essence) put in the current planning applications before producing the draft master plan.

If 12 mppa is approved together with the infrastructure developments that go with it, the master plan will effectively look beyond 12 mppa because they would have secured the planning approvals to reach 12 mppa with the current applications.

However, I think it looks less likely than it did yesterday that North Somerset council will approve the plans. An appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against a decision to refuse the application would delay the process significantly.

If, and it's a big if but it has to be considered, all legal avenues eventually failed to have the 10 mppa raised the airport owners would be stuck with a business that was not able to grow.

 

[Jerry]

If, and it's a big if but it has to be considered, all legal avenues eventually failed to have the 10 mppa raised the airport owners would be stuck with a business that was not able to grow.

From a non BRS view it would definitely be interesting to see what the airlines especially Easyjet would do if that happended as they've always resolutely not expanded out of BRS into other airports in the area unlike the other airlines based at BRS.
It is highly unlikely though that they would be faced with that situation though i believe.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

From a non BRS view it would definitely be interesting to see what the airlines especially Easyjet would do if that happended as they've always resolutely not expanded out of BRS into other airports in the area unlike the other airlines based at BRS.
It is highly unlikely though that they would be faced with that situation though i believe.

If the airport really was restricted to 10 mppa for the coming years all sorts of possibilities could flow from it. easyJet might have to re-evaluate as probably would other existing airlines and potential ones.

I don't know if a final date has been set for the local authority's consideration of the planning applications. The date seems to have been pushed back more than once which I'm told is not unusual with such things.

 

[superking]

After the recent council elections ther has been a few changes to the councillors. Today Tuesday the 14th will be the first meeting of the new council and 1 of the topics to be discussed will be the airport planning issue.Perhaps we might get some sort of idea the way the council are thinking.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

After the recent council elections ther has been a few changes to the councillors. Today Tuesday the 14th will be the first meeting of the new council and 1 of the topics to be discussed will be the airport planning issue.Perhaps we might get some sort of idea the way the council are thinking.

The new council leader is an Independent by the name of Don Davies who is not known for his support of Bristol Airport.

The council has decided to abolish the previous cabinet system that existed under the huge Conservative majority and operate under a so-called Rainbow Coalition that will involve Independents, Lib-Dems, Labour and Greens. The 13 Conservative councillors (down from 36 in the last administration) will be the Opposition.

It's hard to see a majority of these councillors on the planning committee voting for airport expansion.

The government could 'call in' the planning applications but having not done so in 2011 (albeit then there was a Coalition government), and having made a virtue of allowing local representatives to decide local issues, it's unlikely that they would call in the current applications.

There is an argument that the airport is a major regional facility and it's wrong to allow one of many councils in the region (and one of the smallest, to boot) to take such a decision on behalf of the region, but that was the case in 2011 when the then council endorsed those airport planning applications.

I presume the airport would appeal to the Planning Inspectorate if the council rejects the airport's applications. A planning inspector would then be appointed to hold an enquiry prior to arriving at a decision.