EDINBURGH
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that UK airports want to expand into shopping malls, with very little money spent on the infrastructure where it's most needed. At BHX there is (or there was) a very nice luggage shop outside the departure point. The problem is who wants to buy luggage at the airport? I never saw anyone go in at all.
Even legacy carriers have a crack down on costs meaning handling is often outsourced to the third party and incestuous merry go round of Circusair, Menzies and Swissport rather than in-house staff who used to have some degree of judgement and latitude with much higher standards of customer service. Think BA Handling versus Aviance / Servisair. There was a reason BMI kept client facing staff in-house and even Diamond Service is fading from memory now. This is not a criticism of BA or BD as I agree they needed to make the move to remain competitive, it's just a shame on some levels we lost some good people and ways of doing business.
The bottom line is that the UK model isn't set up to do infrastructure, certainly not strategic infrastructure. Hence we get piecemeal and half baked developments way too often. Then there's T5 but that's pretty rare nowadays, indeed in the current environment, the Terminal at Stansted would have been built as a tin shed to Ryanair specifications. It's a legacy from a past vision that never came true.
As for EDI, I am sure one from EY / EK / QR could make a go of it but having said that I always thought someone in the East would want to fly direct to Florida and Canada too. Ah they said Continental would never work either!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 63
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are they moving the railway at the 24 threshold ? Otherwise you might just squeeze the extension in, but where are you going to put the ILS localiser aerials ?
Is this a chicken and egg situation though?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LV
Posts: 2,296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If apparently the taxiways and aprons cant hold widebodies, whats the point in a trivial starter strip ? If airlines so far dont want to operate routes with aircraft that are suited both to the current runway length and taxiway /apron restrictions- in terms of chicken and egg- the chicken's been about for years.
Anyone know the implications of 787 ops from EDI in terms of routes and range from current facilities ?
Anyone know the implications of 787 ops from EDI in terms of routes and range from current facilities ?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 63
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone know the implications of 787 ops from EDI in terms of routes and range from current facilities ?
- The PCN for the main aprons at EDI is 72R/C/W/T (although, to reach the SE apron it is necessary to taxi along taxiways Lima or Mike and runway 12/30 which have a PCN of 31F/C/X/T; at present, this significantly limit the ACN of aircraft that can use the SE apron on a regular basis);
- Taxiway Alpha and runway 06/24 are 74R/C/W/T;
- Runway 12/30 and the north cargo apron are 31F/C/X/T
- The South cargo apron is 79R/D/W/T (although, to reach this apron it is necessary to taxi along runway 12/30 which has a PCN of 31F/C/X/T; this significantly limits the ACN of aircraft that use that apron.)
To find out what these codes mean, read the Wikipedia links above. Suffice to say that the runways, aprons and taxiways at EDI are significantly weaker than other airports such as NCL, GLA, PIK, BHX, MAN, and BFS. If you want to check PCNs for any other airport, they are available via the NATS site at: http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/in ... id=13.html
Boeing hasn't published the final payload/range or runway performance figures for the 787-8 yet but it would appear, based on the preliminary ACN/performance charts that were previously available (currently withdrawn) from their web site, that the ACN at EDI would be 84 (aprons are PCN 72) and that payload/range from EDI would therefore be limited by the PCN of the apron, taxiways and the runway unless they are all strengthened. This preliminary data indicated that a fuel/payload reduction from EDI of about 53,500lbs (20%) would be necessary to stay within the PCNs. If an ACN>PCN overload of 10% is permitted (such an overload is frequently permitted on a regular basis by many airports) then the range / payload reduction would be less. Even with a weight restriction, the 787-8 should still be able to operate from EDI with a reasonable payload / range, but until Boeing publishes the detailed performance figures and weights it is not possible to know for certain.
I haven't seen any detailed performance and weight figures from Boeing for the 787-9 variant but it is heavier than the 787-8. Unless it uses a different undercarriage arrangement to spread the weight in a more pavement-friendly manner then I would expect the payload/range reductions from EDI to be greater than for the 787-8 variant but until Boeing publishes the detailed performance figures and weights it is not possible to know for certain.
Preliminary figures from Airbus indicate that the A350 will also suffer payload / range restrictions operating from EDI due to PCNs but until Airbus publishes the detailed performance figures and weights it is not possible to know for certain.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 63
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to my previous post, I've managed to locate the preliminary 787-8 data that I thought Boeing had deleted from their web site. It's not easy to find as it's not in the 787 section where you would expect it to be. Instead, I was looking under the heading "out of production models" (e.g. 707, DC8, MD11 etc), then clicked on "Airplane characteristics for airport planning" and there it was. Make of that what you will; Boeing: Commercial Airplanes - Commercial Aviation Services - Flight Operations Support - Airport Technology - 787 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning
I had thought that the 787 was in production, albeit deliveries are somewhat delayed.
I had thought that the 787 was in production, albeit deliveries are somewhat delayed.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North of England
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Livingston and Edinburgh
Age: 86
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London
Posts: 746
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thomson airways at EDI 2012
Does anybody know if thomson airways will be opening up a base
at edinburgh in 2012, i have just read that they are to operate long haul
flights to Cancun and Florida for summer 2012 and also starting Lanzarote from may to october.
I appreciate that astraeus are operating the thomson flights for them this summer, i was
just wondering if anybody knows whats going to be happening 2012.
Thanks
at edinburgh in 2012, i have just read that they are to operate long haul
flights to Cancun and Florida for summer 2012 and also starting Lanzarote from may to october.
I appreciate that astraeus are operating the thomson flights for them this summer, i was
just wondering if anybody knows whats going to be happening 2012.
Thanks
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hole in the fence at EDI, airport closed, "Don't panic, don't panic!"
BBC News - Hole in fence at Edinburgh Airport disrupts flights
Apparently someone was looking for their missing mobile phone.....
Apparently someone was looking for their missing mobile phone.....
I have to laugh at the response from the BAA being to rescreen pax in the terminal.
A hole in the fence suggests either a person has entered or exited the airfield or an item has been passed inside the fence to another. Of course why cut a hole when you can toss it over? So what is the rationale behind the pax screening? Is it because someone may have got something into the terminal building/handling agent accomodation/ baggage handlers portacabins etc and they were worried a pax may then retrieve this item and board an aircraft. In that case, announcing all pax to leave the departure lounge to be rescreened would result in said item being left airside in the terminal and collected later, and there is no way that they could search the terminal properly in the time they had. Of course who says a pax might be involved, lots of staff work there as well.
What they should have done is a full and complete search of all buildings/vehicles/aircraft/lockers/shops, in fact every square inch of the airport. Clearly this was not done as it would have taken days. No, the pax screening is a token gesture to the public and media saying ''hey look at us, we take security very seriously'' totally ignoring just how insecure the whole airport actually is.
A hole in the fence suggests either a person has entered or exited the airfield or an item has been passed inside the fence to another. Of course why cut a hole when you can toss it over? So what is the rationale behind the pax screening? Is it because someone may have got something into the terminal building/handling agent accomodation/ baggage handlers portacabins etc and they were worried a pax may then retrieve this item and board an aircraft. In that case, announcing all pax to leave the departure lounge to be rescreened would result in said item being left airside in the terminal and collected later, and there is no way that they could search the terminal properly in the time they had. Of course who says a pax might be involved, lots of staff work there as well.
What they should have done is a full and complete search of all buildings/vehicles/aircraft/lockers/shops, in fact every square inch of the airport. Clearly this was not done as it would have taken days. No, the pax screening is a token gesture to the public and media saying ''hey look at us, we take security very seriously'' totally ignoring just how insecure the whole airport actually is.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Livingston and Edinburgh
Age: 86
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, the pax screening is a token gesture to the public and media saying ''hey look at us, we take security very seriously'' totally ignoring just how insecure the whole airport actually is.
Probably no bigger than the 'padlock' holes on the crash gates and most certainly would have attracted the attention of the observers of the airport's Peri fence CCTV. No this is obviously a cover-up for a terminal incident caused
by mixing inbound with outbound pax..
Only domestic pax are allowed to mix. All cross border pax have to go through border control which should be segregated. Can't see the problem mixing arriving and departing pax as all have been screened.
Arriving and departing pax at EDI
Bingofuel, that's not the case for departing pax at EDI, domestic and intl are mixed, they are only segregated inbound. But you are right, unless the hole was a big Foxtrot Oscar sized one, the response seems a trifle....silly.
Having said that, if the hole was at the west (Ingliston) end, no staff, never mind punters, could get there from the terminal without attracting attention. A red BAA pass is required for staff to get to the taxiways, and anything other than a police or ops/security vehicle would deffo get someone's attention.
OTEA
Having said that, if the hole was at the west (Ingliston) end, no staff, never mind punters, could get there from the terminal without attracting attention. A red BAA pass is required for staff to get to the taxiways, and anything other than a police or ops/security vehicle would deffo get someone's attention.
OTEA