Having examined the 777-300ER performance figures from EDI, and since no airline pilots/ops staff have replied to my question about the adequacy or otherwise of the runway length at EDI for long-haul ops, I decided to try to determine the payload/range figures from EDI for the 767 and 747. All data is taken from the detailed performance graphs on the Boeing web site.
============================================================ ========================================================
B767-400ER (CF6-80C2B8) from an 8,400ft dry runway at sea level would have a range of;
- approx 2,700nm at MZFW on a standard day with zero wind. NB. MZFW would equate to about 245 pax plus about 22,700kg of cargo or an equivalent mix of pax and cargo.
- approx 2,400nm at MZFW on a standard day +17C (ie. 32C which is unheard of at EDI).
By interpolating Boeing's figures, on a warm summer's day in EDI (25C), 2,525nm might be the max range at MZFW from 06/24.
- 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 10,800kg of cargo/pax according to Boeing's charts.
- Max range with 245 pax and no cargo would be about 4,800nm on a warm summer's day in EDI (25C).
- If the runway is wet then the range and/or the payload would be reduced.
Using Boeing's performance charts, a MTOW take-off from a dry runway at sea level for a B767-400ER (CF6-80C2B8F engines) would require about;
- a 2,100ft runway extension to 06/24 assuming a standard day with zero wind;
- a 2,900ft runway extension to 06/24 assuming a standard day +17C;
By interpolating Boeing's figures, on a warm summer's day in EDI (25C) a 2,600ft runway extension would be needed for a MTOW take-off for a B767-400ER (CF6-80C2B8F engines).
- A wet runway would increase the runway length required and/or necessitate a reduction in TOW (i.e. reduced range or payload).
Precise figures for each airline's 767-400ERs will vary from Boeing's figures depending on how they are kitted out.
Conclusion; a 767-400ER would suffer significant payload/range limitations operating from EDI unless the runway is extended by a significant amount. Given the current runway length, the US east coast and the Middle East would be about the limit allowing for head-winds and/or some cargo.
============================================================ ========================================================
B767-300ER (CF6-80C2B7F1) from an 8,400ft dry runway at sea level would have a range of;
- approx 3,900nm at MZFW on a standard day with zero wind. NB. MZFW would equate to about 269 pax plus about 20,400kg of cargo or an equivalent mix of pax and cargo.
- approx 3,600nm at MZFW on a standard day +15C (ie. 30C which is unheard of at EDI).
By interpolating Boeing's figures, on a warm summer's day in EDI (25C), 3,725nm might be the max range at MZFW from 06/24.
- 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 10,400kg of cargo/pax according to Boeing's charts.
- Max range with 269 pax and no cargo would be about 5,900nm on a warm summer's day in EDI (25C).
- If the runway is wet then the range and/or the payload would be reduced.
Using Boeing's performance charts, a MTOW take-off from a dry runway at sea level for a B767-300ER (CF6-80C2B7F engines) would require about;
- zero runway extension to 06/24 assuming a standard day with zero wind,
- a 400ft runway extension to 06/24 assuming a standard day +15C,
By interpolating Boeing's figures, on a warm summer's day in EDI (25C) a 250ft runway extension would be needed for a MTOW take-off for a B767-300ER (CF6-80C2B7F engines).
- A wet runway would increase the runway length required and/or necessitate a reduction in TOW (i.e. reduced range or payload).
Precise figures for each airline's 767-300ERs will vary from Boeing's figures depending on how they are kitted out.
Conclusion; a 767-300ER would have slight payload/range limitations operating from EDI on hotter and/or wet days unless the runway is extended a little. SIN might be do-able with 269 pax and no cargo subject to routings and winds, but I'm not certain how profitable this route could be with no cargo revenue. Anywhere in the mainland USA plus PEK, and perhaps NRT, HKG and BKK would be do-able with some cargo and 269 pax depending on winds and routings.
============================================================ ========================================================
B747-400 (CF6-80C2B1 engines) from an 8,400ft dry runway at sea level would have a range of;
- approx 4,300nm at MZFW on a standard day with zero wind. NB. MZFW would equate to about 420 pax plus about 27,200kg of cargo or an equivalent mix of pax and cargo.
- approx 4,100nm at MZFW on a standard day +17.2C (ie. 32.2C which is unheard of at EDI).
By interpolating Boeing's figures, on a warm summer's day in EDI (25C), 4,150nm might be the max range at MZFW from 06/24.
- 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 18,100kg of cargo/pax according to Boeing's charts.
- Max range with 420 pax and no cargo would be about 5,500nm on a warm summer's day in EDI (25C).
- If the runway is wet then the range and/or the payload would be reduced.
Using Boeing's performance charts, a MTOW take-off from a dry runway at sea level for a B747-400 (CF6-80C2B1 engines) would require about;
- a 2,000ft runway extension to 06/24 assuming a standard day with zero wind,
- a 2,900ft runway extension to 06/24 assuming a standard day +17.2C,
By interpolating Boeing's figures, on a warm summer's day in EDI (25C) a 2,525ft runway extension would be needed for a MTOW take-off for a B747-400 (CF6-80C2B1 engines).
- A wet runway would increase the runway length required and/or necessitate a reduction in TOW (i.e. reduced range or payload).
Precise figures for each airline's 747-400s will vary from Boeing's figures depending on how they are kitted out.
Conclusion; a 747-400 would suffer significant payload/range limitations operating from EDI unless the runway is extended by a significant amount. At MZFW, and given the current runway length, it could almost reach the US mid-west / south eg. IAH and DEN (depending on headwinds) and it could reach MCO, DXB and DEL. With 420 pax and little or no cargo it could reach LAX, NRT, BKK and HKG (subject to winds and routings) but I'm not certain how profitable these routes could be with little or no cargo revenue.
============================================================ ========================================================
Airbus
Airbus don't publish detailed specifications on their web site, but if the Wikipedia figures are to be believed, the A330-200's payload/range performance would not be limited by the current runway length at EDI. The A330-300 should be fine for a MTOW take-off from the existing runway too, except perhaps on a hot day with a wet runway. The A340 variants would either need a longer runway or would suffer some payload/range restrictions.
============================================================ ========================================================
Overall summary.
The current runway length at EDI limits the payload/range of some types of long-haul aircraft but not the A330-200 which appears to be ideally suited to long-haul and ultra long-haul ops from EDI. The 767-300ER in a 3 class configuration looks fine too, but doesn't have such good payload/range or runway performance as the A330-200.
The main impediment to long-haul expansion at EDI would appear to be a lack of suitable stands and terminal facilities rather than runway length.