although a fair amount of money needs to go in from GIP if they want Qatar or Emirates. It's a mickey mouse layout at the moment and it's only getting worse as traffic builds.
By all accounts that process of investment has now started. Several million now being ploughed into airfield and terminal upgrades to allow EDI to better cater to larger aircraft, according to the minutes of the latest Edinburgh Airport Consultative Committee meeting. Furthermore, the airport bosses do expect progress towards at least one Middle East route in 2013, so announcements shortly, with any luck. QR is rumoured, though EK remains a possibility.
Over the next decade I think we will see some substantial investment from GIP in upgrading the way the terminal works. If the ultimate aim is to sell in 7-10 years time then they will be looking to add significant value to the airport, and sell it on for substantially more than the £800m they purchased it for.
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 52
Posts: 277
Following on from Skipness’s and Bartek’s comments, it's interesting to note that a few days after the GIP purchase of EDI was confirmed, many of the PCNs (pavement strengths; see Pavement classification number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) were substantially increased without any new works having being undertaken. Presumably, all that GIP did was to carry out a new technical assessment of the some of the pavements as part of their survey / due diligence activities, probably using a Falling Weight Deflectometer (see; Falling weight deflectometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). It's strange that BAA didn't carry out these technical re-assessments many years or decades earlier because the pavements didn't suddenly consolidate from a C grade (low strength subgrade) to A grade (high strength). This consolidation must have happened steadily over an extended period of time (possibly since the pavements were laid in the mid 70s and early 60s).
I anticipate that GIP will carry out a technical re-assessment of the remaining pavements at EDI in the coming months and I expect that they will find that they are also substantially stronger than BAA had previously declared.
GIP is in the process of resurfacing the older centre section of taxiway Alpha which should allow its usable width to be restored to 23 metres. BAA had allowed the usable width of this part of the taxiway to reduce from 23 metres to 21 metres in recent years. Following this work, (NOTAM end date is currently 28/9 but that might not be the acual end-date for the works; see https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/PilotWe...trievalByICAOs ) I believe that (the relatively short) taxiways Lima and/or Mike will be strengthened. For details about PCNs and the layout of aprons / stands / taxiways at EDI, see NATS | AIS - Home .
Once these works are completed, there should be no significant PCN impediment to B773ER or A346 operations from EDI (generally these are the highest ACN commercial aircraft types; see Aircraft classification number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). The limiting factor would then become the runway length rather than ACNs/ PCNs. The existing runway length at EDI should be adequate for all long-range wide-bodied aircraft types to operate flights to the Middle East and east coast USA and for many such aircraft to operate as far afield as China, Japan and west coast USA. An extension would be needed for operations where very high take-off weights are needed (e.g. long range cargo or very long-range passenger flights by some aircraft e.g. SIN with a B744 carrying a decent payload) but it should be adequate for most aircraft types on the sort of long-range routes that EDI might reasonably expect to attract for the time being.
My previous observation was that Emirates were unlikely to operate from EDI due to their fleet standardising on the B773ER and A380 and the former aircraft in particular being unsuited to EDI’s PCNs. If a new technical assessment of the remaining pavements provides the results that I expect and if a main apron stand for a B773ER is created (re-instate stand 6A or the stand between 11 and 14 or ???) then there should be no ACN/PCN impediment to such operations. Once Taxiways Lima and/or Mike are strengthened then stand 17 on the SE apron could also be used for this aircraft type (it’s slightly too long for stand 17 but I expect that it should be possible to find a way to overcome this issue).
Under GIP ownership, I expect that PCN/ACN limitations at EDI will become a thing of the past very soon and this will allow EDI to compete more effectively for long-range routes.
What we have at EDI, especially the part around gates 1-4 is a 1970s terminal in the 21st century. The "corridor" set up which only allows either boarding or disembarkation to be done on Gates 1J-4 and not both at the same time is by no means acceptable for the amount of people EDI handles these days and it does nothing to help the flow of passengers or airport operations during peak times. The problem at EDI is they have just neglected to give us anything new, any real expansion of the terminal building, other than the area where there are shops. The SE pier was a wasted opportunity. They could have given EDI a much needed international section, with improved immigration and customs facilities and gates which could handle wide body aircraft in a way which didn't cause other parts of the airport to be shut off!
While BAA, on the whole were good, they did fail to leave us with an airport which was fit for modern day and seemed more interested in catering for what they had rather than building to attract new business.
Yeah, being a Scot in exile allows you to forget, just how *swearingly* cold and wet Scotland can be. I would urge GIP to have Stands 7-9 fitted with airbridges for frequent fliers on business. The LCY flights have airbridge cover at GLA, it's not a great customer experience not to have the basics. My expectation is that BA/BMI and BA CityFlyer's LHR, LGW and LCY services all should have a covered walkway. I understand why EZY might not want to pay for one but EDI should have the option.
I agree the Southeast pier was a great chance missed, the international arrivals procedures are set up to cause delays as the need to keep international arrivals and departures seperate was never designed into the building back in the mid 70s.
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 52
Posts: 277
When the "new" terminal was opened in the 70s, domestic flights used the cul-de-sac. The problems started when BAA switched international to the cul-de-sac. That wasn't the brightest of ideas.
While taxiing to the hold at the end of Runway 08 I was a bit surprised to see a Ryanair 738 line up and take off from an intersection. It looked like quite a few hundred feet from the end of the runway... Seems to be an unnecessary risk to take .. its not like EDI is that busy .. and the runway is not that long either.. Is this normal ?
I don't know about EDI, but it happened to us on our flight to Malaga from PIK. We started our take off run from just past the western high speed exit on runway 13, the pilot must have caned the engines to get us up, the take off run was spectacularly short...
Last edited by The Hypnoboon; 25th Sep 2012 at 21:17.
Well let me see, I can't say I would do intersection as a rule, but the performance will be specifically calculated from the intersection and the performance ensures that the take off can continue in the event of an engine failure at the critical time. So your use of the term "unnessesary risk" is unfounded since a take off from full length will meet exactly the same criteria as set down in the regulations. If ATC ask me if I can take an intersection to help with flow management or other reasons, which they do from time to time, I will if performance will allow it. Recently they have been resurfacing the taxiway which has lead to this happening perhaps a little more often than usual,
The intersection at PIK you speak of, leaves an amount of runway remaining longer than the full length at EDI, I can assure you the engines were at reduced thrust settings, even at Maximum take off mass.
just had a look at the EDI chart.. the Ryanair took off from Intersection B1. . so there must have been about 500m of runway behind them... meanwhile the EMB145 that I was in used the full length? And all to save about 2 minutes of taxi time?
Flying phil, you clearly fail to understand the criteria for which each and every JAR 25 regulated departure is required to adhere. A departure from B or C intersection MUST satisfy the regulations, which takes account of an engine failure at the critical moment and either stopping within the remaining distance or becoming airborne and achieving the specified height above all obstacles overhead the required point, be it the end of the runway or clearway. EDI ATC have specifically asked me if I can depart from an intersection in the past week and the required calculations have been performed! This could be due to a slot expiration? Perhaps the Embraer had a slot, and had to wait at A? Or perhaps the embraer required a checklist to be run for a technical reason? Perhaps ATC asked if the Ryanair could Depart from B because he was turning left and the Flybe had to wait because he was turning right and the previous departure had turned right and required spacing? I very much doubt it is about 2 min taxi, as you put it?
thanks VictorC10.. I had not seen an intersection take off at EDI before. When I was in Australia I did hear ATC offer a female QANTAS pilot an intersection take off - she declined and said she always took the full lenght - to much schoolboy giggling..
Was on a similar dep from PIK on 17/8/12 to AGPThey were late and trying to make up time if I remember. All perfectly fine with intersection distances declared. Did think that the time saving was marginal! But FR culture is taking over the industry Is safety being eroded
??
I've got the Easyjet app on my phone, they are showing Reykjavik as a route from EDI but does not pull back and results. When you check it from KEF it's also shows routes to MAN. It's not on the website, could it be a new route for those extra aircraft ? or just a glitch.
not sure, but that KEF "glitch" has shown up a number of times over the years, and may be a new route from somewhere, not necessarily from EDI and not necessarily to KEF !
Certainly KEF is flown from LUT with EZY. Used it myself a few weeks back - very good loads. Now if EZY were ever to introduce a KEF service from EDI I think that would be very interesting bearing in mind that Icelandair operate a 757 service to GLA - what is it these days twice or three times a week?
I know that the Iceair flights tend to go on to or come from States/Canada however I cetainly did notice that a lotof the EZY pax from LUT were Icelandic.
I would suspect they would carry different types of pax. FI going for the premium and transfer pax through KEF to US. EZY covering the low cost and locals. I wouldn't think Iceland Express would last at EDI. I see FI ex GLA is up to 4 times a week again shortly.
Now if EZY were ever to introduce a KEF service from EDI I think that would be very interesting bearing in mind that Icelandair operate a 757 service to GLA - what is it these days twice or three times a week?
EZY Edinburgh-KEF would almost certainly be bad news for Icelandair from GLA. That service is already a poor shadow of its former self, and I doubt many are using it these days for Scotland-USA transfers when UA has such a grip on the direct market, and BA, KL, AF and LH clean up on the connecting stuff. EZY is a strong brand, and FI would struggle to compete on price.
Fascinating Bartek, ICE are upping GLA-KEF to 4 x direct weekly next summer, quite possibly due to the 44% rise in pax (3809) between GLA and KEF in August (EDI minus 34% - 1354) which outperformed MAN's 3693 pax, it's well known that Icelanders prefer Glasgow for shopping more than anywhere else.
