EDINBURGH
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 43
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What drivel! If there was no prospect of operating the route at a decent profit, or if other destinations offered a better prospect, then Sterling would have looked elsewhere. A summer only frequency is better than nothing at all, and looking at the CAA route stats for EDI-CPH the route saw some very healthy growth in 2006.
It's great to see Sterling keeping their faith in the Scottish market.
It's great to see Sterling keeping their faith in the Scottish market.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Healthy growth" in passenger numbers perhaps ( I dont see the CAA data breaking down the passengers numbers between operators) - but that obviously doesnt translate into profits- given the significant frequency cut. Perhaps theyre doing it all wrong- you should get on to them.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently TAFKABACON (the-airline-formerly-known-as-baconnect) has co-ordinated slots for a daily ex SAT flight to DUS with effect 01JUL07:
X6 BA7886 EDI 1135 - 1405 DUS E145
X6 BA7887 DUS 1445 - 1515 EDI E145
X6 BA7886 EDI 1135 - 1405 DUS E145
X6 BA7887 DUS 1445 - 1515 EDI E145
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
going back to the CPH service, is a 2 x weekly a real product?? i mean, what happens if you miss your flight?
clearly there will be people booking, but how good of an offer is it?
clearly there will be people booking, but how good of an offer is it?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overheard a conversation while I was sitting in EDI departures. Now don't shoot the messenger. bmibaby are to open a base in EDI from the start of the winter. Introduction of 2 aircraft initially with an additional 2 for 2008.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edinburgh Airport Rail Link has been given approvla by MSP's.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/6448319.stm
How do people think this will affect passenger/traffic levels?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/6448319.stm
How do people think this will affect passenger/traffic levels?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Livingston and Edinburgh
Age: 86
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>How do people think this will affect passenger/traffic levels?
Pax figures can only get better given airlines will realise that EDI's surface convenience/accessibility will become even more attractive than it is now.
Pax figures can only get better given airlines will realise that EDI's surface convenience/accessibility will become even more attractive than it is now.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm all for public transport, but EDI already has a modal split of 22%+ for buses - more, for example, than BHX, which has its own dedicated railway station.
£610m can't possibly be good value for money. How many passengers will shift because of this?
Let's say that 5% of 10m = 500,000 per year. Or 5m over 10 years? Subsidy of £100+ per passenger?
And where's the money coming from? Muggins ENGLISH tax payer no doubt? Did WE get a vote on this?
Then:
"The Greens also said they were unconvinced that the rail line, which will cost three times what it is expected to cost to build a similar link to Glasgow Airport, was value for money. "
Since when have the Greens cared about value for money? If they are opposing a rail project, there must be something seriously wrong with it - even if it is going to an airport.
And how can a link from Paisley to GLA (about a mile?) cost £200m! All of this infrastructure makes sense in principle, but it has to make financial sense.
£610m can't possibly be good value for money. How many passengers will shift because of this?
Let's say that 5% of 10m = 500,000 per year. Or 5m over 10 years? Subsidy of £100+ per passenger?
And where's the money coming from? Muggins ENGLISH tax payer no doubt? Did WE get a vote on this?
Then:
"The Greens also said they were unconvinced that the rail line, which will cost three times what it is expected to cost to build a similar link to Glasgow Airport, was value for money. "
Since when have the Greens cared about value for money? If they are opposing a rail project, there must be something seriously wrong with it - even if it is going to an airport.
And how can a link from Paisley to GLA (about a mile?) cost £200m! All of this infrastructure makes sense in principle, but it has to make financial sense.
Ofcourse the escalating costs of holding the Olympic games in London, England which runs to Billions will nt be funded by the Scottish tax payers - naturally they had a vote on this???
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nivsy, London has had the Dome, paid for largely by lottery money. The Olympics will be predominantly paid for by lottery money, sponsorships and London taxpayers. I don't buy lottery tickets, I don't live in London, so I'm not going to complain so loudly.
Both of the above over-ran their budgets. Then there's Wembley - I think I might be paying for that one, but I also hope to be able to benefit from a concert or two, and something to brighten up the journey out of Euston.
EDI already has a perfectly good bus link into town. Sure, I'd prefer a train, and I'd find a direct link to Glasgow useful from time to time. But if the ticket costs are anything like the rate charged by the LHR Express (article talks of premium fares), I might still end up using the bus. Unless of course they do what they did at NCL, and scrap the bus. Am I also right in thinking that Edinburgh to Glasgow train journeys will now take longer?
So all I can say in response to your question is that the £610m will almost certainly end up being conservative.
There was no reference in the article about who is paying for this facility, and I assume it won't be BAA. If we're not paying for it, then I'll gladly stand corrected - but whoever is paying for it, I just can't see much sense in the sums.
Both of the above over-ran their budgets. Then there's Wembley - I think I might be paying for that one, but I also hope to be able to benefit from a concert or two, and something to brighten up the journey out of Euston.
EDI already has a perfectly good bus link into town. Sure, I'd prefer a train, and I'd find a direct link to Glasgow useful from time to time. But if the ticket costs are anything like the rate charged by the LHR Express (article talks of premium fares), I might still end up using the bus. Unless of course they do what they did at NCL, and scrap the bus. Am I also right in thinking that Edinburgh to Glasgow train journeys will now take longer?
So all I can say in response to your question is that the £610m will almost certainly end up being conservative.
There was no reference in the article about who is paying for this facility, and I assume it won't be BAA. If we're not paying for it, then I'll gladly stand corrected - but whoever is paying for it, I just can't see much sense in the sums.