You're not the
PR bloke for CO, by any chance, John?
Ok, let's address your responses:
EDI frequencies
I have it on good authority from one of the senior marketing people at CO that they view the EDI and GLA markets basically as one. They have seemingly done their O&D research and bearing in mind the relative market sizes (metropolitan Glasgow being some five times the size of metropolitan Edinburgh) I'm personally rather sceptical of the viability of transatlantics ex EDI.
Sure, a lot of businesses are EDI based, leading one to assume good high yield traffic - but is it going to be sufficient to sustain year-round operations? Again, you have special events such as the Edinburgh festival that increase - substantially - the numbers of tourists but again, this doesn't justify year round ops to EDI.
Scottish airline
Actually, there has only been one attempt at a home-grown Scottish long haul airline (if one disregards Adam Thompson's Caledonian which although it operated very successfully from PIK was nevertheless a LGW based carrier) - and that was Randolph Fields' Highland Express. Their primary downfall was that they used a single old, poorly maintained B747-100 which kept breaking down. Single aircraft airlines just don't work - especially in that sort of market.
If a country is to be seen as a serious contender in the global marketplace, it must be readily accessible to both visitors and investors. Even the Isle of Man (Manx), Channel Islands (Aurigny) and Wales (Air Wales) have their own, home-grown, carriers - Scotland has Scot Airways which is really still Suckling and based out of CBG; Highland Airways which is part of Air Atlantique and Loganair which is part of BRAL.
Scotland continues to move towards full independence within a federal Europe, and I would therefore assert that yes, it is extremely important for it to have a locally owned and based airline!
Operations via a third country
Which is why Scotland needs its own airline - as I said, the hassle factor puts people off coming there: and that applies as much to investors as it does to tourists.
Scottish Executive
CO have made it clear to the Scottish Executive that they want money from them if the EDI service is to be launched. My view is that that money would be better spent on establishing a home-grown airline rather than giving it to an American megacarrier that will probably pull out of the market after a year or so anyway.
The provision of government funds does not necessarily signify that the operation would be government controlled - look at the subsidies provided to various essential air operations such as the Highlands and Islands, Scilly Isles, etc.
Investment in an airline by the Scottish Executive via Scottish Enterprise will generate jobs and stimulate inward investment - its something that's good for Scotland plc.
No West Coast USA - Scotland market
I disagree completely with that - the 1996 CAA O&D stats show that there is indeed a very viable market to the West Coast of the USA. In addition, direct services would stimulate traffic from that area (the LA basin has a population 50% greater than the whole of Scotland!) - especially for golfing and other specialist vacations.
My point was that neither GLA or EDI have extendable runways - and that PIK remains the only true long-haul airport in Scotland.
BAA
First, bear in mind that a very sizeable number of passengers (in excess of 50%) do not use London as an O&D point. In other words, LGW and LHR (especially the latter) are simply hub airports. As with several of the US megahubs, they could be in the middle of nowhere and it wouldn't affect the passengers. A hub in Scotland would make a great deal of sense as it would alleviate ATC congestion in the London TMA and again provide a substantial number of jobs. In the case of passengers headed to northern Europe from the Eastern USA, it would also have the effect of cutting their overall journey time substantially.
The monopoly position of the BAA is something that needs to be closely investigated. They control pretty much every major international airport in the UK with the exception of Manchester (and BHX if you regard that as a major international airport). In particular, they have an effective monopoly (with the exception of LTN) on major airports in SE England. Is this really acceptable?
BA
As the UK's 'national airline' shouldn't they have a duty to provide effective,
direct service to Scotland? Not to them, anyway! They would far rather have pax leave their homes in EDI or GLA and fly over them again a few hours later having transited through LHR or LGW having been able to screw them for a few hundred pounds more thanks to the 'sum of sector' fare rules affecting UK-US flights from those airports under Bermuda II.
BA has enough interline agreements in place with carriers beside AA to allow the feed of pax to/from their gateway destinations, so that argument doesn't wash, I'm afraid!
In any case, the 'sum of sectors' rules would not apply to flights originating from airports other than LHR and LGW - so passenger convenience and cost saving is once again being put second to BA's quest for operational efficiency and profit. (And as a BA shareholder I'd applaud them for that, btw - but it does tend to negate their position as the UK's flag carrier!)