There's 5 stands that can take aircraft bigger than B763. For an A332 6A, 17, 23 and maybe 18 and 21 (again wingspan could be an issue but they can take up to B764). All would involve knocking out adjacent stands either side though, and all would involve bussing inbound pax to immigration.
Yes and no because stands 17 and 18 can't be used at the same time, and 21 and 23 can't be used at the same time.
Stand 6A will take a/c up to B744 but only when stands 5 and 6 are not in use. This is the only one of the larger stands that currently has a jetway.
Stand 17 will take a/c up to B744 but only when stands 16/18/19 are not in use.
Stand 18 will take a/c up to B764 but only when stands 17/19 are not in use.
Stand 21 will take a/c up to B764 but only when stands 20/22 are not in use.
Stand 23 will take a/c up to A342 but only when stands 22/24 are not in use.
I'm not sure whether the A330-200 would fit on stands 18 or 21 as the wingspan is over 27 feet wider than a 767-400. Possibly not, otherwise I'm sure BAA would have said so. If stands 17 and 21 (or 23) are used simultaneously, then 6 or 7 smaller stands are lost and, as GoEDI says, international pax to these stands need to be bussed to the other end of the terminal.
If EK can operate a 77W out of BHX, EDI would'nt be a problem.
The runway at BHX is a slightly longer and the route is slightly shorter, both of which might have an impact on the payload/range of any particular aircraft type and therefore the revenue that can be generated. Having said that, Boeing's payload/range charts for a 777-300ER (GE90-115B1 engines) indicate that it could fly EDI-DXB with max payload as it's a relatively short trip (3,200nm), but it won't fit on any of the existing stands at EDI (see my previous comments about the AF 777-300ER) and the international facilities at EDI probably couldn't cope with that number of international pax at once on top of the existing throughput.
btw, Boeing's performance charts indicate that a 777-300ER (GE90-115B1 engines) could fly the following distances from an 8,400ft dry runway at sea level;
- approx 4,100nm at MZFW on a standard day with zero wind and
- approx 3,750nm on a standard day +15C (ie. 30C which is almost unheard of at EDI).
- By interpolating Boeing's figures, on a warm summer's day in EDI (25C), 3,850nm might be the max range at MZFW from 06/24 for a 777-300ER.
- Additional range requires a reduction in MZFW (ie. less pax/cargo in exchange for additional fuel) eg. an extra 1,000nm range requires a payload reduction of about 14,500kg of cargo/pax according to Boeing's charts.
- If the runway is wet then either the range or the payload would need to be reduced.
Using Boeing's performance charts, a MTOW take-off from a dry runway would require about;
- a 1,600ft runway extension to 06/24 assuming a standard day with zero wind,
- a 2,000ft runway extension to 06/24 assuming a standard day +15C,
- By interpolating Boeing's figures, on a warm summer's day in EDI (25C) an 1,850ft runway extension would be needed for a MTOW take-off of a 777-300ER (GE90-115B1 engines).
- A wet runway would increase the runway length required or necessitate a reduction in TOW (i.e. reduced range or payload).
I'm not sure what routes (if any) might be viable from EDI with a 777-300ER at MTOW so some of these figures are somewhat hypothetical.
Precise figures for each airline's 777-300ERs will vary from Boeing's figures depending on how they are kitted out.
More than likely that EDI will swap international arrivals to the new south east pier sooner, rather than later, and airbridges will be added. South East pier has been designed so that it could be swapped.
I expect that all of the new stands in the current SE expansion will be required by existing European and short-haul expansion plans announced by various airlines. Swapping international to the SE pier and adding jetways would provide some capacity for larger long-haul a/c but would leave a significant shortage of smaller stands. Where will they expand to next?
From sources that wish not to be named, Emirates offered to pay for works to be able to accept the A332 daily a few years ago, but it was not accepted.
That's entirely consistent with what I suspect BAA's strategy is in relation to long-haul from EDI for the reasons I gave in an earlier post.