Skipness one echo is almost correct in his evaluation of the situation in the 90/00s.
The debate then was about PIK and its transatlantic monopoly which at the time the airlines in question wanted to move to GLA because it was the busiest airport in Scotland. The PIK question then got addressed and as a result many moved or started to operate from GLA. BAA was then forced very quickly into addressing the shocking lack of LH capability at GLA. Stage 2 the white extension to the front of the building was built quickly followed by stage 2a the west pier. As you correctly say the west pier had the 757 & 767 in mind in its design as Glasgow's major operators at the time Britannia, Airtours and Air 2000 were all either operating or had ordered large numbers of B757s and 767s. So the west pier was ultimately about meeting the demand of those airlines as we had the possibility of 7 B757s based at GLA operating from an old pier designed in the 60's for BAC1.11's and props.
At the time not many airlines were interested in flying from EDI to European or longhaul destinations as Edinburgh was seen as Scotland's number two airport/city basically due to the population of Glasgow which for many of the IT companies and legacy airlines was important.
The on set of the low cost market started to change that perception and all of a sudden cheap weekend breaks made possible by low cost air fares became all the rage and Edinburgh became a huge city break destination. At the same time the Scottish parliament was born and a central government became ever so entrenched in Edinburgh. As a direct result BAA had to act quickly to meet the demand just like it had to do previously at GLA.
BAA was faced with a number of issues and like any company it had finite amount of capital resources to spend and it had to prioritise how to spend that money to meet the immediate demand of its airline customers. PCN weight issue at that time was not seen as an issue because no airline operating into Scotland was talking about operating anything above 767 size which as you know EDI and GLA could handle with ease, therefore and correctly BAA set out on a vast capital expenditure program which delivered the new lounge extension, the SE pier (which was future proof) and I think around 15 stands as well as the new full length taxiways. All of these projects cost millions at met the exact demand of the airlines flying from EDI and increased EDI's capacity to around 10 million per year the exact same as GLA. So its all about spending money where it is required at the time.
Returning to the PCN issue. Even at the time of sale of EDI there was no major airline talking to BAA about operating anything above the B767 with some airlines considering operations with the A330 and the 787 but due to the recession there was no real substance to their position and start dates were expected 2012 onwards or whenever the recession showed signs of improving. It was viewed and correctly that changes could be made to the west side of the facility in the short term to accommodate any surprise introduction of the A330 and B787 type. Interesting this is exactly what GIP done for QR. Once these airlines started to commit then it was our intention to double the width and length of the SE pier and switch the internationals from west to east as demand grew as this option presenting the best options to accommodate LH traffic.
The on set of the Spanish buying BAA made a lot of MP's worried as it was a huge British company responsible for providing vital airport capacity now being owned by a foreign company which in the process of buying BAA became debt ridden and concerns were raised about the amounts that would be spent on infrastructure. Anyway the CC was called in and although huge concerns were raised about BAA management of LHR, LGW and STN the CC were very impressed by the BAA regional airport management teams. Ultimately despite the success of BAA in Scotland the CC felt that although well managed the introduction of competition would ultimately be better for Scottish traveler which is a different argument for a different day.
EDI got sold to GIP. At the same time the country was starting to show "green shoots of recovery" to quote a famous statement at the time and it was clear that growth in the aviation market was starting to appear. BAA's position prior to the sale date was that EDI had really captured the EU market and therefore any growth would ultimately come in the form of longhaul traffic with limited EU upgrades. In the states and in Canada no airline was talking about anything above the 767 (Code D/E) flying into EDI and as expected recent growth in longhaul from EDI was on those types. As a direct result there was no need in the middle of a recession to spend money you were not making on an issue that could be addressed quickly and when required.
There was many rumours at the time that EDI was in the running for EK and the reason it went to GLA was because of the lack of widebody stands but that was all utter nonsense and was factually incorrect as EDI was already capable with ease of handling the A330. EK needed access to the huge mature holiday market of GLA as well as the considerable Pakistani and Indian communities of south Glasgow to make the service work in the earlier days.
So when GIP got the keys to EDI they did so with an economy recovering with many longhaul operators like Untied and Air Canada already interested in flying to EDI but who were waiting for the right time to start. GIP ultimately only had to offer these airlines a deal and they had a number of new routes with NO new approach required and again interestingly NO new infrastructure to accommodate. Please remember that since the introduction of the new transatlantic routes and QR from EDI, GIP have provided no new concrete to accommodate this traffic, they ultimately took the facilities they were left from BAA and changed them about which is exactly what BAA would have done.
Now that traffic has been secured GIP have now introduced a five year project (little/big red box) to accommodate the expected growth in this market which again is exactly what BAA would have done. If you look at the detail of the new extension its clear its about accommodating the exact requirements of QR and EY which again is what any company would do.
Finally, in the cold light of day people need to look at the facts and if you have any aviation background or understanding of airports and indeed if you know your recent history of Scotland's airports the detail above will ring true and you will understand exactly how well BAA left EDI for GIP to take over and hence why previous posts made by CJ needed to be challenged for there lack of factual understanding and knowledge of BAA's time in charge at EDI.