Its been over 8 years since I worked at EDI, but on a recent visit it was apparent that apart from new taxiways and the soon-to-open tower, nothing much has changed. A runway has closed and the other runway is parked on for most of the day. Are these problems caused by ATC? No. They are caused by the BAA.
After the then 13/31 was resurfaced in the early 90's, we were encouraged to use it as much as we could. We did. Departures from 13 and arrivals on 31 were the norm. This was great. It took the pressure of the then 07/25 to the tune of over 10,000 movements in the year. Crews loved it. ATC loved it. The vocal residents of the new expensive housing developments in the Gyle, constructed whilst the runway was being resurfaced, hated it. Overnight, we were told not to use it unless it was really necessary, i.e. strong crosswinds or closure of the other runway. Who told us not to use it? The BAA.
All the SIDs (except the DCS/TRN from 06) go "straight ahead" for at leat 5 and usually 7 miles. Why? The BAA want them to. Why? Noise abatement. OK, you can live with the turn to 050 after departure to avoid Cramond but why stay on that heading for 7 miles? Noise abatement they say. If the Talla SID from 06 turned right at 3D (like the DCS/TRN turn left) but remained offshore, departure separations could be improved greatly.
I worked on the ATC Technical Committee for several years and tried to get the Class E airspace upgraded to D. That still hasn't happened. Too much pressure from GA and military interests.
I tried to get the SIDs realigned to make things more efficient. You need "track guidance" for any new SIDs they said. OK, I said try these, sending them new ideas. Nothing. I go and work at Manchester and we get new SIDs which do not have any track guidance in them. Dual standards or something else?
Most of the ideas proposed at EDI were scuppered by the BAA for either noise or cost reasons.
Back to departure separations for a minute. EDI and GLA still use the speed table for departure separations. This was designed in the 1970's and with a few tweaks is still in use today. 2 minutes between a couple of BAC1-11s wasn't much more than the 5 miles Scottish required. 2 minutes between a couple of today's modern jets is about 8 miles. Can we reduce the time standard? No. Can we use radar to give you 5 miles? No. There's progress. I work in a tower where controllers are given the tools and the responsibility to give departure 3 miles in trail separation, based on radar information. The UK CAA does not allow tower controllers to use the ATM to do this. Why? Who knows.
Why do all departures go directly to Scottish, who use old equipment and procedures and are having to slow the traffic down to cope, rather than to an airport departure controller who uses better equipment and can use 3 miles separation? IMHO it comes down to money for staff at the airports and the unwillingness of Scottish to give up a task that somebody else could do better.
Until somebody plucks up the courage to make a decision that would improve matters, be it BAA, NATS or even CAA, then nothing will improve much, no matter how shiny that new tower is.