EDINBURGH

[Bartek]

EDI's runway is longer than NCL's, and its terminal facilities generally of a much better standard too. It's a big red herring, in my opinion, to cite the current lack of carriers such as Emirates as evidence of some inability of the airport to sustain such services. I have reason to believe the first Middle East service from EDI is not all that far away

[Porrohman]

One of EDI's problems is that it only has one stand capable of taking any aircraft bigger than a 767-300, but use of this stand (6A) means that stands 5 and 6 (two of the busiest stands) can't be used. Given the shortage of stands at peak times this isn't currently a practical option.

The A330-200 is better suited to long-haul ops from EDI's runway but needs stand 6A because its wingspan is much longer than the 767's. The 767-300ER can fit several stands but it needs more runway than the A330-200 and therefore suffers some payload restriction operating from EDI. Most of the 767 stands need international pax to be bussed to and from the terminal which is less than ideal, and the international arrivals and departures facilities remain inadequate.

A number of new stands are expected to be completed shortly but given the forthcoming increases to BACF, EZY and FR flight programs (amongst others) the shortage of stands will persist. I'm not aware of any immediate plans to improve the international arrivals and departures facilities, the stand size limitations or the runway length.

Add to this EDI's very high charges, and BAA are hardly encouraging long-haul ops from EDI.

[GoEDI]

I'd be interested to hear opinions from any pilots / airline ops staff whose airlines currently (or potentially might) fly long haul from EDI as to whether the runway length / international terminal facilities / stand size & availablity are impeding long-haul growth at EDI.

I think this recent quote from Emirates with regards to their Scottish operations and the possibility of switching ops to EDI and if they view it as a suitable alternative to GLA answers your query well.

"Emirates does not envisage any problems with switching flights so far as slot utilisation is concerned. However, Emirates would have concerns about the airport's terminal capacity to handle international wide-body aircraft."

http://www.competition-commission.or...ing_papers.htm

BAA have always said they will provide the facilities only when required (how very pro-active of them ), but if EK think this I wonder how many other airlines are getting put off by it, QR had A332 slots for this summer which never developed, maybe the fact that they'd have to bus their inbound pax everyday put them off....

[ROSSKi MYT]

Emirates couldnt swithch, the runway is not long enough for the 773, plus it carries over 400 pax, the terminal couldnt cope!

[CabinCrewe]

"couldnt switch"...now come on- thats not strictly true. They could easily use an A330, and double daily to keep capacity if necessary.
I note Emirates are also stating that the yields wouldnt necessarily be any better at EDI and there would obviously be relocation costs associated with it. It is my feeling that they are unlikely to switch, and a new operator at GLA is likely to offer cheaper landing fees IMO.
Another middle eastern operator perhaps ex EDI, but there is certainly nothing currently in the pipeline.

[Porrohman]

Emirates couldnt swithch, the runway is not long enough for the 773, plus it carries over 400 pax, the terminal couldnt cope!

There's another problem which prevents Emirates from operating the 777-300 from EDI; Stand 6A was sized for a 747-400. The 777-300 is longer and has a greater wingspan. When the AF 777-300 visited for the rugby earlier this year it was too long for stand 6A causing problems for vehicles and other aircraft passing behind it.

As CabinCrewe says, the A330-200 could be used by Emirates or others to EDI but would need to use 6A and would probably overload the international arrivals and departures facilities.

BAA don't mind allocating 6A to the occasional ad-hoc charter at quieter times of the day but it would require considerable disruption for other airlines if it were to be allocated principally to long-haul. Also, it's just one stand. What happens when it's busy or when another airline wants to introduce similar sized aircraft?

Another possible A330/777/747 stand could perhaps be provided by combining stands 11 & 14 but this has the additional problem that it has no jetway and is at the domestic end of the terminal so all pax would need to be bussed to the terminal. Also, it involves the loss of two stands which are already a scarce commodity at EDI. There are also some potential widebody stands on the SE pier but they have no jetways and their use involves the loss of two or three existing stands and the bussing of pax.

BAA have always said they will provide the facilities only when required (how very pro-active of them ), but if EK think this I wonder how many other airlines are getting put off by it, QR had A332 slots for this summer which never developed, maybe the fact that they'd have to bus their inbound pax everyday put them off....

BAA's attitude towards long-haul from EDI is quite clever and understandable given their virtual monoply. Why invest money at EDI when;
a) sufficient international terminal facilities are already available at GLA
b) the slightly longer runway there gives airlines some additional operational flexibility and
c) direct long-haul flights from EDI (or GLA) reduces BAA's potential revenue from passengers who connect via LHR, LGW or STN.

If EDI was under different ownership I expect the necessary investment in the runway, stands, jetways and terminal facilities would happen immediately. Meantime, don't hold your breath... especially given BAA's current financial situation.

[GoEDI]

Emirates couldnt swithch, the runway is not long enough for the 773, plus it carries over 400 pax, the terminal couldnt cope!

Runway length wouldn't be a problem, GLA's runway is only marginally longer than EDI's. As EK said in that report it's the terminal/stand availabilty that would be the biggest issue. However, I don't think it's a realistic scenario, and I don't see EK ever switching ops from GLA to EDI. It's much more likely that they might add an EDI service in the future but that would be aswell as the existing GLA service.

As CabinCrewe says, the A330-200 could be used by Emirates or others to EDI but would need to use 6A and would probably overload the international arrivals and departures facilities.

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.

[CabinCrew78]

If EK can operate a 77W out of BHX, EDI would'nt be a problem.

Regards

Mike

[scotsunflyer]

More than likely that EDI will swap international arrivals to the new south east pier sooner, rahter than later, and airbridges will be added. South East pier has been designed so that it could be swapped.

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.

[Porrohman]

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.

[Porrohman]

767 & 747 payload/range performance from EDI

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.

[Porrohman]

Here are some additional quotes from airlines which are contained in the competition commisioner's working papers that GoEDI referred to (http://www.competition-commission.or...ing_papers.htm);

Like Emirates, Thomson does not believe that EDI could handle additional international traffic. They said;

EDI is also very full with domestic traffic and so Thomsonfly traditionally operates from GLA. The only sensible substitute for GLA is PIK but this is not something Thomsonfly has ever investigated seriously.

EDI is currently constrained by domestic traffic but we do use crew based at NCL to operate our EDI flights .......

As mentioned previously EDI does take some of the traffic from NCL in the overlap in the difference between the British and the Scottish school terms.

TNT did not consider GLA to be an alternative to EDI but said;

We do use Prestwick for operational diversions but would not wish to on a permanent basis - it is not best placed for our business. Having said that, if charges in EDI became uneconomic then we would have to rethink our position.

Delta said;

To a lesser extent [than LHR is substitute for LGW], Glasgow International (GLA) could be considered as a substitute for EDI for Delta’s service to Scotland, although Delta’s preference is to offer this service through EDI.

There are no comments from Continental in the competition commissioner's working papers, but the fact that they choose to operate twice daily 757s to Newark rather than a daily widebody perhaps indicates that they don't believe that EDI can handle international widebody traffic?

[GoEDI]

Excellent analysis there. I believe there was provisions made for runway starter strips in the master plan, who knows if or when we'll ever see them.

There are no comments from Continental in the competition commissioner's working papers, but the fact that they choose to operate twice daily 757s to Newark rather than a daily widebody perhaps indicates that they don't believe that EDI can handle international widebody traffic?

I think that's more to do with the fact that they are well known to be short of widebody capacity and thus only send them where they are really required.
Sending a widebody to EDI would be regareded as a waste (same as all other UK regional markets, LHR is now the only station to receive widebody aircraft from EWR), 2 752s also represents greater capacity than even a single daily B772 could provide.
There was a short spell that CO operated a B762 to EDI but when they started EZE that aircraft was then required there, which highlights their widebody shortage.

[Joe Curry]

There are no comments from Continental in the competition commissioner's working papers, but the fact that they choose to operate twice daily 757s to Newark rather than a daily widebody perhaps indicates that they don't believe that EDI can handle international widebody traffic?

I prefer to think that BAA's terminal facilities are not geared to physically handling a 764? Hence it's absence..

[OltonPete]

Co 764

If you believe all you read on a.net there are no 764's to go round
anyway in summer as they are maxed out on their existing schedule.

Also if any UK airport (outside of LHR) is in line I would think that Manchester will be at the top of the list, with BA pulling the JFK
and load factors on the 2 x daily 757 during the winter were brilliant
(obviously I can't vouch for yield).

EDI will probably have to make do with 2 x 757, which is more than
BHX's pathetic offering and sky high fares. Be warned that when BHX
was double daily on the 757 it was believed to have been a disaster
and it never came back, it did go 10 weekly briefly before reverting
to daily in summer. All that before $135 a barrel!

Pete

[Joe Curry]

If you believe all you read on a.net there are no 764's to go round
anyway in summer as they are maxed out on their existing schedule.

But even if there were, would BAA Scotland make provision to handle them @ EDI on a regular daily basis?

[MUFC_fan]

I'm pretty sure MAN would get the 764 nod before EDI.

I would have thought the 762/3 would be at MAN by now but obviously there are probably a/c shortages.

Be happy you have 2x daily 757s! As Olten Pete says - BHX only has one! Along with GLA etc.!

Would have thought MAN would get the upgrade before EDI but never make assumptions!

(obviously I can't vouch for yield)

If the a/c is full up front it most likely will be making a lot of money!

[Porrohman]

MUFC_fan said;

I'm pretty sure MAN would get the 764 nod before EDI.

I'm sure your right as the 764 would require a runway extension before it could operate EDI-EWR with a full payload.

A CO 764 subbed for a 752 into EDI recently but it departed with a 752 passenger load so there was no problem operating from EDI's runway. The only practical alternative to 2 x 752 daily would be 1 x 772 but there's no space yet to park one on a regular basis at EDI. Maybe when the SE pier is complete and double sided their might be space but no firm details of the final layout have been announced yet AFAIK.

[Porrohman]

Emergency landings at EDI

They say that certain things often come in threes. That's certainly the case at EDI;

• On Sunday, AF5556 en-route CDG/ABZ (an E90) diverted and made an emergency landing at EDI. After clearing the runway, a/c was shut down and was towed to stand. I haven't heard what the nature of the emergency was.
• This morning, a Monarch 752 bound for Reus from EDI had to return with a hydraulic leak. After fire service checked the a/c it was shut down and towed to stand.
• Just after the fire service were stood down from that incident, and having cleaned the taxiways (presumably of the leaking hydraulic fluid from the MON 752), they were called out again for a Flybe Q400 (G-JEDP) with an undercarriage problem.

All three a/c landed safely. Various diversions and delays resulted.

[GoEDI]

I'm sure your right as the 764 would require a runway extension before it could operate EDI-EWR with a full payload.

While you are correct, the amount of cargo carried would be nowhere near the 20+ tonnes that the Boeing figures take into account so I doubt runway length would be an issue to EWR.
CO operated B764s from GLA for quite a while, GLA's runway being only marginally longer than EDI's, of course.
The stand/terminal facilities that you mention are the bigger issue.
In theory a B772 could go on stand 6A like the B764, but logistically it isn't a great solution and CO are much better off operating 2 B752s until the facilities are in place, whenever that may be!!