EDINBURGH
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well Done!
I was afraid they'd make them sell GLA, which is already competing with PIK.
If the idea is to promote competition, this is a ballsy move that will enrage the BAA.
Now we'll have GLA & PIK competing with each other- and the pair of them competing with EDI.
IMHO a much healthier scenario.
It was quite obvious that this was the best way, but I'm still surprised at the outcome. I thought GLA would be sold.
ROFLMAO!
I was afraid they'd make them sell GLA, which is already competing with PIK.
If the idea is to promote competition, this is a ballsy move that will enrage the BAA.
Now we'll have GLA & PIK competing with each other- and the pair of them competing with EDI.
IMHO a much healthier scenario.
It was quite obvious that this was the best way, but I'm still surprised at the outcome. I thought GLA would be sold.
ROFLMAO!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Munnyspinner I believe your analysis is wrong in every respect. Glasgow has it's own business community and is well served by connections in the UK. The European dimension is almost exclusively EDI based as Edinburgh has a larger inbound tourist market than Glasgow.
If EDI is to gain long haul scheduled traffic, then it won't happen overnight as the BAA has deliberately not provided parking
When you say that GLA has rapid ascents to avoid terrain it shows that you clearly know squat about the subject matter. Where on Earth did you extract that little gem from?
If EDI is to gain long haul scheduled traffic, then it won't happen overnight as the BAA has deliberately not provided parking
When you say that GLA has rapid ascents to avoid terrain it shows that you clearly know squat about the subject matter. Where on Earth did you extract that little gem from?
MunnySpinner raises a valid question - namely how many airports the central belt (looked at broadly) of Scotland can support.
Prestwick, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee...
If GLA and EDI are separately owned and thus competing against each other... does the need exist for both DND and PIK to act as anti-BAA competitors for anything more than the most local of traffic ? Is DND thus condemned to be a Scottish MME or HUY ?
Further, will FR, Wizz and the summer-sun operators need PIK as much, if they can play GLA and EDI off against each other and gain improved demographics ?
One could of course look as this as a benefit of competition - bringing lower-costs to the airports closest to where the bulk of people live
Prestwick, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee...
If GLA and EDI are separately owned and thus competing against each other... does the need exist for both DND and PIK to act as anti-BAA competitors for anything more than the most local of traffic ? Is DND thus condemned to be a Scottish MME or HUY ?
Further, will FR, Wizz and the summer-sun operators need PIK as much, if they can play GLA and EDI off against each other and gain improved demographics ?
One could of course look as this as a benefit of competition - bringing lower-costs to the airports closest to where the bulk of people live
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Livingston and Edinburgh
Age: 86
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If EDI is to gain long haul scheduled traffic, then it won't happen overnight as the BAA has deliberately not provided parking
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Age: 43
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Munnyspinner I believe your analysis is wrong in every respect. Glasgow has it's own business community and is well served by connections in the UK. The European dimension is almost exclusively EDI based as Edinburgh has a larger inbound tourist market than Glasgow.
To some extent Munnyspinner is right, though may not have told the full story. EDI is a stronger market for a number of reasons, including business and leisure. Whilst Glasgow has a strong business community, the EDI business market is made of of more air intensive sectors, who will typically pay a higher fare, and therefore produce a higher yield, accepting of course that the financial sector is suffering at the moment, it is in the long term a strong prospect to be taken into account.
So whilst the business market exists from both points, it is stronger at EDI in terms of what it is willing to pay, and frequency of usage.
The tourism product, as you rightly point out is very strong for Edinburgh, and this is itself a higher yielding market than many leisure destinations, i.e. if you look at US tourists to EDI they will spend high amounts of money.
One airline I know claimed they could operate long haul from EDI because even with runway restrictions which meant they could not carry freight, the expected yield from business and leisure travellers was high enough to make it a passenger only route, and they couldn't operate to any other regional UK point on this basis without freight.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't disagree that the EDI market is much stronger at the pointy end, thought with the Scottish banking sector on life support I suspect yields are poor at the moment and frequencies will suffer. BAA having both EDI and GLA has been very detrimental to EDI in the 1980s and 1990s and detrimental to GLA in the 21st Century. I'm glad that the shackles are to be removed from the BAA, let them find a wee shopping mall somewhere and go run that......
The M8 is a complete mess at the Kingston Bridge as ever and what was once a bonus for GLA is now a millstone round it's neck.
The M8 is a complete mess at the Kingston Bridge as ever and what was once a bonus for GLA is now a millstone round it's neck.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Livingston and Edinburgh
Age: 86
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One airline I know claimed they could operate long haul from EDI because even with runway restrictions which meant they could not carry freight, the expected yield from business and leisure travellers was high enough to make it a passenger only route, and they couldn't operate to any other regional UK point on this basis without freight.
But wasn't it a plan for EDI to get 300metre starter strips at each end to facilitate full payloads.?
You can bet your boots this well become top priority along with larger stands irrespective of who takes control of EDI?
The fact that BAA have not done it up to now speaks reams of what markets they intended both lowland airports for.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airport simply cannot cope into next summer the way things are going. Ryanair are expected to expand up to 5 A/C and there simply isn't the room for the aircraft.
More stands and international terminal capacity are desperatly needed. A new owner would hopefully do something about this.
More stands and international terminal capacity are desperatly needed. A new owner would hopefully do something about this.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness 1E
It is a matter of record that flight profiles for long haul out of Edinburgh in most prevailing wind conditions are as good if not better than GLA. Runway length isn't everything and terrain clearance can be an issue if you look at the SIDs for GLA and EDI you will see what I mean.
Pax yield is better at EDI and there are actually plenty of stands if Ryanfliers were relegated to remote stands. including use of Cargo and RW 12/30 at peak times.
I have heard that CAA has been asked to look at full time simultaneous ops on the intersecting Runways which will boost capacity at peak hours although, you are right that capacity is a function of stand availability not ATMs. So BAA will need to build out the new stands as proposed on the Showground car parks which they have indicated in masterplan.
I maintain that the net loser of a sale of Edinburgh, a much more valuable asset to BAA than Glasgow, will be PIK. It's business model will be unsustainable ina head to head with GLA. Even if the owners were to buy Edinburgh - that would simply replicate the current issue that CC seek to resolve - although I'm still not sure if the issue really exists given that GLA/EDI and PIK cater for differing traffic profiles.
If GLA was on its own then would you not expect that they would seek to poach MO'L from PIK - they would have fiscal freedom and everything to gain from the increased pax which would allow GLA to act as a mini hub with existing Long haul traffic.
I think EDI will maintain its supremacy as a trans european hub with select long haul transatlantic and beyond services. I have heard that Air China have proposed a delegation look at the viability of setting up a twice weekly service.
PIK will be relegated to a deep maintenance base with some cargo ops if they can justify keeping one runway open.
It is a matter of record that flight profiles for long haul out of Edinburgh in most prevailing wind conditions are as good if not better than GLA. Runway length isn't everything and terrain clearance can be an issue if you look at the SIDs for GLA and EDI you will see what I mean.
Pax yield is better at EDI and there are actually plenty of stands if Ryanfliers were relegated to remote stands. including use of Cargo and RW 12/30 at peak times.
I have heard that CAA has been asked to look at full time simultaneous ops on the intersecting Runways which will boost capacity at peak hours although, you are right that capacity is a function of stand availability not ATMs. So BAA will need to build out the new stands as proposed on the Showground car parks which they have indicated in masterplan.
I maintain that the net loser of a sale of Edinburgh, a much more valuable asset to BAA than Glasgow, will be PIK. It's business model will be unsustainable ina head to head with GLA. Even if the owners were to buy Edinburgh - that would simply replicate the current issue that CC seek to resolve - although I'm still not sure if the issue really exists given that GLA/EDI and PIK cater for differing traffic profiles.
If GLA was on its own then would you not expect that they would seek to poach MO'L from PIK - they would have fiscal freedom and everything to gain from the increased pax which would allow GLA to act as a mini hub with existing Long haul traffic.
I think EDI will maintain its supremacy as a trans european hub with select long haul transatlantic and beyond services. I have heard that Air China have proposed a delegation look at the viability of setting up a twice weekly service.
PIK will be relegated to a deep maintenance base with some cargo ops if they can justify keeping one runway open.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Livingston and Edinburgh
Age: 86
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think EDI will maintain its supremacy as a trans european hub with select long haul transatlantic and beyond services. I have heard that Air China have proposed a delegation look at the viability of setting up a twice weekly service.
I think your mention of stands in the Ingliston showground area is actually highlighted in one of the EDI master plan drawings. Closing off the cul-de-sac south of stand 6/6a
BAA however don't seem to be thinking along these lines however given the amount of work taking place in the cul-de-sac currently.
Will BAA stop all work on EDI until ownership issues are resolved? I hope not
EDI has been waiting long enough.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard that they are about to move the fuel farm and then the possibly the fireground to make way for stands off the taxiway.I think at GLA firestation is all airside so that wouldn't be a problem at EDI.
Now the runway resurfacing is complete rumour has it that the fireground will move across to the Cargo side - perhaps less frightening for arriving pax. Just a shame for anyone who still lives at that side of the airport - smoky!
I can't imagine it makes sense to move the fire station but the flight catering units at the west end could easily be moved somewhere else.
Now the runway resurfacing is complete rumour has it that the fireground will move across to the Cargo side - perhaps less frightening for arriving pax. Just a shame for anyone who still lives at that side of the airport - smoky!
I can't imagine it makes sense to move the fire station but the flight catering units at the west end could easily be moved somewhere else.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness 1e,
If you look at the numbers there is a compelling case for both GLA and EDI to stay in common ownership. When times are tough, as they are now, the two airports share core resource and the big three scottish airprts are more profitable as a result. Just imagine the overhead bill if you replicated the management structure for two airports. These efficiencies will be lost and there will be pressure to increase costs. As the airlines can't afford to pay more it will be services that suffer - as always. If there is a competitive issue it is down to the airlines to exert financial muscle. If they haven't been doing that - why not
BAA have for many years operated voluntary regulation ( Scottish Airports are NOT regulated). So their investment programmes are agreed in advance with their customers, based on agreed rate of return. Retailing, car parking goes into a single till to cross subsidise the business and lessen the burden on airline customers. So a big busy airport is good for the airlines.
EDI is very peaky due to the business traffic and the routes service (London and European centres where everyone wants to get to for a working day). Off peak charging is actually very reasonable, if you compare EDI with other similar european airports.
At GLA the route network is quite different and the airport experiences less peak demand. As a result is little differentiation between charging bands.
The net result of the above is that EDI also appeals to budget airlines who, for each new route need to find 3 or 4 others to make sure that A/C utilisation is maximised with crew flying a maximum number of sectors per day. Often these routes are marginal but necessary. They are very cost sensitive and whereas Edinburgh is able to accommodate lots of out of peak movements Glasgow operates on a different basis.
My own view is that PIK is under threat because EDI under new ownership will try and canabalise GLA and both will try and win the PIK budget business. MO'Leary will end up being paid by PIK( he effectively is already) until they realise that the cash is running out as they have lost the real revenue generators and when the pax realise that GLA is on the doorstep or EDI is as convenient (probably more) than PIK. I am sure that is why the Edinburgh rail link was killed - it would potentially remove the need for two central scottish Airports.
If you bear in mond that the greater London area has a population of 10-12M and has 4 main airports ( I have not counted LCY but have included LTN) it does beg the question why Scotland needs 3 in the central belt ( not counting DND) where the population is sub 5M. We may fly more but the catchment for the the London airports is probably 15-20M.
ABZ and INV each have their own market and serve it well. We do not need three Airport serving central Scotland and I struggleto see why PIK needs to subsidise Ryanair given that very few of the pax are destined for Ayrshire (and many of them actually drive form the East of Scotland!!)and that to deal with 2M pax the employment figures for the airport are not as high as GLA or EDI.
If you look at the numbers there is a compelling case for both GLA and EDI to stay in common ownership. When times are tough, as they are now, the two airports share core resource and the big three scottish airprts are more profitable as a result. Just imagine the overhead bill if you replicated the management structure for two airports. These efficiencies will be lost and there will be pressure to increase costs. As the airlines can't afford to pay more it will be services that suffer - as always. If there is a competitive issue it is down to the airlines to exert financial muscle. If they haven't been doing that - why not
BAA have for many years operated voluntary regulation ( Scottish Airports are NOT regulated). So their investment programmes are agreed in advance with their customers, based on agreed rate of return. Retailing, car parking goes into a single till to cross subsidise the business and lessen the burden on airline customers. So a big busy airport is good for the airlines.
EDI is very peaky due to the business traffic and the routes service (London and European centres where everyone wants to get to for a working day). Off peak charging is actually very reasonable, if you compare EDI with other similar european airports.
At GLA the route network is quite different and the airport experiences less peak demand. As a result is little differentiation between charging bands.
The net result of the above is that EDI also appeals to budget airlines who, for each new route need to find 3 or 4 others to make sure that A/C utilisation is maximised with crew flying a maximum number of sectors per day. Often these routes are marginal but necessary. They are very cost sensitive and whereas Edinburgh is able to accommodate lots of out of peak movements Glasgow operates on a different basis.
My own view is that PIK is under threat because EDI under new ownership will try and canabalise GLA and both will try and win the PIK budget business. MO'Leary will end up being paid by PIK( he effectively is already) until they realise that the cash is running out as they have lost the real revenue generators and when the pax realise that GLA is on the doorstep or EDI is as convenient (probably more) than PIK. I am sure that is why the Edinburgh rail link was killed - it would potentially remove the need for two central scottish Airports.
If you bear in mond that the greater London area has a population of 10-12M and has 4 main airports ( I have not counted LCY but have included LTN) it does beg the question why Scotland needs 3 in the central belt ( not counting DND) where the population is sub 5M. We may fly more but the catchment for the the London airports is probably 15-20M.
ABZ and INV each have their own market and serve it well. We do not need three Airport serving central Scotland and I struggleto see why PIK needs to subsidise Ryanair given that very few of the pax are destined for Ayrshire (and many of them actually drive form the East of Scotland!!)and that to deal with 2M pax the employment figures for the airport are not as high as GLA or EDI.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes you do make some good points now. I think in fairness as far as domestic routes go, GLA and EDI mirror each other with EDI having the greater frequency. You are right that GLA lags in the European route structure due to Edinburgh's raised profile internationally, Parliament and the financial sector. EDI lags any long haul leisure routes beyond Toronto I believe.
For my part I think if the two airports stand on their own two feet then the consumer will win. We shall see. I think it's certainly added some excitement and much needed focus on the Scottish airports.
BTW very naughty leaving LCY out of the London equation! That's the #1 business airport for the City !!
For my part I think if the two airports stand on their own two feet then the consumer will win. We shall see. I think it's certainly added some excitement and much needed focus on the Scottish airports.
BTW very naughty leaving LCY out of the London equation! That's the #1 business airport for the City !!
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Munneyspinner
Where is this record ? I'd be quite interested in reading it, if only to see what a 'good' profile has been defined as.
The CAA will not in fact undertake any work on such a proposal as they are a Regulator and not a provider. In accordance with the Airspace Charter, it is up to the airport authority or the Air Traffic Unit to formulate any proposal and provide arguments and mitigations to prove to the Regulator it is safe. The CAA will then approve or reject the proposal depending on how it meets the safety issues and complies with appropriate legislation.
Read the SID charts and note the climb gradients required. Edinburgh DCS/TRN SIDs for jets require a climb gradient on 7.7% for RW24 and 8% for RW06. For TLA SIDs (all non jet departures plus jets departing via TLA), the gradient is 7.4% for RW24 and 3.4% for RW06.
The highest gradient you will find for Glasgow on any SID is the TRN SID with a gradient of 7%. All the others are much lower in value.
That suggests to me that performance requirements out of Glasgow, even with closer terrain, is much less of an issue than it is at Edinburgh.
As Skipness 1E stated:
with which I (and the SID charts) agree, although I would be a touch more diplomatic I think. 
It is a matter of record that flight profiles for long haul out of Edinburgh in most prevailing wind conditions are as good if not better than GLA.
I have heard that CAA has been asked to look at full time simultaneous ops on the intersecting Runways which will boost capacity at peak hours although, you are right that capacity is a function of stand availability not ATMs.
Runway length isn't everything and terrain clearance can be an issue if you look at the SIDs for GLA and EDI you will see what I mean.
The highest gradient you will find for Glasgow on any SID is the TRN SID with a gradient of 7%. All the others are much lower in value.
That suggests to me that performance requirements out of Glasgow, even with closer terrain, is much less of an issue than it is at Edinburgh.
As Skipness 1E stated:
When you say that GLA has rapid ascents to avoid terrain it shows that you clearly know squat about the subject matter. Where on Earth did you extract that little gem from?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runway length isn't everything and terrain clearance can be an issue if you look at the SIDs for GLA and EDI you will see what I mean.
The CAA are of course a regulatory authority and I have heard and believe that they have have been consulated on the matter of simultaneous ops on intersecting runways. In fact, Edinburgh Airport long term masterplan appears to be promulgated on intensified use of RW12/30 prior any commitment to a second parallel runway. ( BAA interim masterplan 2006) and unless you tell me otherwise I seem to recall that the CAA were a statutory consultee in this response to DFT white paper.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cross runway at EDI isn't used a great deal as there are traffic conflicts with aircraft on the main I believe. BAA have been rather keen to use it for parking, much the same way as 23 / 05 at Heathrow. Runway expansion at EDI is based on a new build parallel runway, not crossing traffic at speed on an existing busy runway.
Also the Tower gets a lot of noise complaints when any of the larger traffic uses the cross strip, hence BAAs reluctance to have it used more.
Also the Tower gets a lot of noise complaints when any of the larger traffic uses the cross strip, hence BAAs reluctance to have it used more.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Livingston and Edinburgh
Age: 86
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like BAA are unfazed with the CC's possible ultimatum?
BAA pushing ahead with terminal plan at city airport - Scotsman.com News
BAA pushing ahead with terminal plan at city airport - Scotsman.com News
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cross runway can be used simultaneously with the main runway and is sometimes used this way. Conflicts can are resolved by dovetailing the traffic flows. When EDI was resurfacing the main there was a fair amount of traffic that was handled this way. It takes about 10 minutes off the approach and is shorter departure route. However, I am not sure of the current instrument status of 12/30. Buildings at Edinburgh park allegedly infringe the protected surcface on the climbout. Something that was missed by CAA!
I seem to recall that 12/30 was resurfaced about 10 years ago and even though it hasn't had much wear BAA will need to look at resurfacing again within the next 2-5 years. Give the costs one would expect that they will want to make better use of the resource that to use it for parking A/C.
I have used 12/30 for arrival in 757 - visual approach ( best view of Edinburgh!) - home early that night and fairly frequently in SD360. I know that that it used to be a common question from most turboprop crews wanting to cut 10 mins off the approach. Recently I think I have seen less parking on the runways but there is much more activity across the 12 undershoot which I think means they are more likley to use it for 30 departures and 12 arrivals than vice versa.
Perhaps a knowledgable ATCO will let you know. If you compare EDI with Gatwick you might wonder why a new parallel runway is needed becuase flow rates could be increased to handle 20M pax.
I seem to recall that 12/30 was resurfaced about 10 years ago and even though it hasn't had much wear BAA will need to look at resurfacing again within the next 2-5 years. Give the costs one would expect that they will want to make better use of the resource that to use it for parking A/C.
I have used 12/30 for arrival in 757 - visual approach ( best view of Edinburgh!) - home early that night and fairly frequently in SD360. I know that that it used to be a common question from most turboprop crews wanting to cut 10 mins off the approach. Recently I think I have seen less parking on the runways but there is much more activity across the 12 undershoot which I think means they are more likley to use it for 30 departures and 12 arrivals than vice versa.
Perhaps a knowledgable ATCO will let you know. If you compare EDI with Gatwick you might wonder why a new parallel runway is needed becuase flow rates could be increased to handle 20M pax.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Livingston and Edinburgh
Age: 86
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to recall that 12/30 was resurfaced about 10 years ago and even though it hasn't had much wear BAA will need to look at resurfacing again within the next 2-5 years. Give the costs one would expect that they will want to make better use of the resource that to use it for parking A/C.