EDINBURGH
Joe, can you tell me what's the difference between BAA encouraging (though I doubt it) airlines such as Thomson and Thomas Cook, and their predecessors, to base aircraft at GLA rather than EDI, and the deals brokered for Easy and Ryanair to base aircraft at EDI?
My answer is that your reasoning is utter bobbins. The airlines decide. The largest outbound tourist market is STILL Glasgow, the largest inbound tourist market is STILL Edinburgh. Now play nice and pretend that there's room for more than one Scottish airport, and I will get back on topic in my next post.
Deal?
My answer is that your reasoning is utter bobbins. The airlines decide. The largest outbound tourist market is STILL Glasgow, the largest inbound tourist market is STILL Edinburgh. Now play nice and pretend that there's room for more than one Scottish airport, and I will get back on topic in my next post.
Deal?
Good to see strong growth at EDI for April, though I guess that with EZY and RYR basing more aircraft, plus VS arriving, its gotta happen.
Heard that BA will end B767 services in the autumn, no doubt the LHR pie is only so big.
Heard that BA will end B767 services in the autumn, no doubt the LHR pie is only so big.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Livingston and Edinburgh
Age: 86
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airlines decide. The largest outbound tourist market is STILL Glasgow,
In the past under BAA ownership, they got the money irrespective of which airport Scots chose.
The airlines decision was at the behest of BAA.
Sorry Joe, you don't know much about how airports and airlines work.
And I didn't say Glasgow would be the ONLY outbound market, just the largest one.
Look at Jet2, they were at EDI long before GLA, and their gig is outbound holidays. Fast forward a few years and look at the 2014 programme. Big numbers, though both airports feature.
This isn't an EDI diss, I'm just asking you to take off the blinkers. There's room for both.
And I didn't say Glasgow would be the ONLY outbound market, just the largest one.
Look at Jet2, they were at EDI long before GLA, and their gig is outbound holidays. Fast forward a few years and look at the 2014 programme. Big numbers, though both airports feature.
This isn't an EDI diss, I'm just asking you to take off the blinkers. There's room for both.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Livingston and Edinburgh
Age: 86
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GIP's future plans for EDI
An interview with Michael McGhee, GIP's head of transport, on his future plans for EDI.
£100m investment over the next five years, and new gates to accommodate wide-body aircraft:
Interview: Michael McGhee, GIP head of transport - Transport - Scotsman.com
£100m investment over the next five years, and new gates to accommodate wide-body aircraft:
Interview: Michael McGhee, GIP head of transport - Transport - Scotsman.com
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Livingston and Edinburgh
Age: 86
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ability to house wide-bodied aircraft again features as BAA only installed such facilities at Glasgow which has meant Edinburgh being unable to compete.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The ability to house wide-bodied aircraft again features as BAA only installed such facilities at Glasgow which has meant Edinburgh being unable to compete."
Eh?
Eh?
Last edited by LFT; 28th May 2013 at 19:49.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: scotland
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eh,
Delta operated the 767 to Atlanta, ATA used the L1011 to Orlando, Air Transat used the A310 and L1011 to Toronto.
This argument is slightly flawed. I thought the real issue with long haul at Edinburgh was the runway length.
Delta operated the 767 to Atlanta, ATA used the L1011 to Orlando, Air Transat used the A310 and L1011 to Toronto.
This argument is slightly flawed. I thought the real issue with long haul at Edinburgh was the runway length.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EDI has always been able to "house" widebodies, they've just not chosen to be "housed" there. Does Delta, Britannia, American Trans Air, Air Transat, Aer Lingus that they shouldnt have been housed there ?
The facilities are perhaps not perfect but few are.
The facilities are perhaps not perfect but few are.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I could be due numerous apologies for even suggesting this in the past?
Because it was at the corner and meant some ground traffic had to drive out on to the taxiway to get past. There was no 2-way traffic head of stand road at EDI between stands 4 and 6, IIRC. When the east side was redeveloped, two stands were made capable of housing large widebodies.
Oh, and the airbridge on 6/6A was a basket case, might have been replaced since I worked there.
But weights kick in again, that's another headache for GIP to tackle.
Oh, and the airbridge on 6/6A was a basket case, might have been replaced since I worked there.
But weights kick in again, that's another headache for GIP to tackle.
Last edited by OntimeexceptACARS; 29th May 2013 at 00:16. Reason: 6a stand roadway explanation
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
If you search PPRuNe for "Edinburgh ACN PCN" you will find a number of posts in this thread, and in a thread in the Tech Log forum, that discuss the strengths and weaknesses of EDI vis-à-vis regular long-range wide-bodied operations.
A brief summary is;
Runway 06/24 is long enough for a decent selection of long range wide-bodied routes with a decent selection of wide-bodied aircraft types but the technical data published during the BAA era indicated that it was neither long enough nor strong enough for all such aircraft to operate at their respective max take-off weights. That said, the most likely potential medium / long-range routes from EDI wouldn't require take-offs at maximum weights or require a longer runway. By way of example, during the BAA era, a reasonable selection of medium and long-range routes would have been possible with non-winglet B763s (using existing main apron stands) and with A332s (if a suitable main apron stand had been created for this aircraft type). A stand for larger wide-bodied aircraft might have been possible by, for example, reinstating stand 6A and/or reinstating the diagonal stand that used to exist between stands 11 and 14. Other potential locations for stands for larger wide-bodied aircraft are conceivable
One of the significant limitations I established after reviewing detailed technical data published by NATS, Boeing and Airbus was that the PCNs of the aprons and (to a marginally lesser extent) the runway (06/24) that were published during the BAA era limited the payload / range of a B773ER quite significantly unless ops were sanctioned with a significant ACN>PCN overload. I checked with BAA to see whether my conclusions were correct and they agreed with my assessment. These PCNs would presumably have been one of the factors that influenced Emirates decision to operate from GLA rather than EDI but other considerations might have also been important. I’m not party to Emirates deliberations on this subject but the PCNs and other facilities at EDI for such flights at the time that Emirates made their decision were demonstrably inferior from an operational perspective (including potential payload / range) to those available at GLA at the time.
As has been pointed out, the SE apron has a number of stands capable of handling larger wide-bodied aircraft however the PCNs of taxiways Lima and Mike that link that apron with Taxiway Alpha had a published PCN, during the BAA era, that prohibited regular use of these stands for long-range wide-bodied ops. B773ERs to Paris and A332s to Dublin for rugby charters and certain other wide-bodied flights were permitted as one-off ops on an occasional basis but take-off weights (and therefore ACNs) for most of these flights would be low compared to long-range ops.
Three main apron stands were (and still are) able to accommodate aircraft up to TriStar / A310 / B752W / B763 (without winglets) size. One of these was almost exclusively a BA shuttle stand. There had been various stands on the main apron over the years that had been able to accommodate aircraft up to B744 size but terminal alterations and apron re-layouts by BAA eliminated all of these at various times over the past 40 years. Perhaps one or more of these stands could have been retained / reinstated (as mentioned above) but BAA chose not to.
Delta operated regular B763 flights from EDI for a time but the arrival time in Atlanta was quite late (IIRC it left EDI at 13:45). Every time I considered using this service, my onward connection arrived in my ultimate destination in USA just before or after midnight. By the time I would have collected my bags and reached my hotel it would be about 2 a.m. or later. As a result, I never used the service and I suspect that many other potential passengers felt the same as me. Whether the arrival / departure time at EDI was constrained by the availability of EDI stands/ slots or ATL stands / slots or some other reason I couldn’t say for certain, but the two stands that were able to accommodate the Delta B763 were heavily utilised during the morning for B752 ops and, too often, the Delta B763 would arrive and no suitable stand would be available. My suspicion is therefore that the Delta B763 arrival and departure time was constrained by a shortage of suitable stands at EDI.
It's interesting to note that during the week that GIP took over operations at EDI, the PCNs of many parts of the airfield were significantly upgraded without (as far as I know) any physical works having been undertaken. In the period between then and now, further PCN upgrades have been declared (via NATS) and I expect that more will follow quite soon.
Whether or not BAA knowingly understated the PCNs during the preceding years I couldn't say but I was somewhat surprised to see circa 45 year old pavements being upgraded from C strength sub-grade to A strength as a result of a change of ownership before GIP had carried out any physical works. One possible explanation is that GIP technically re-assessed the PCNs of these sections of pavement (perhaps during due-diligence surveys prior to the purchase) but perhaps there is another explanation. It is not clear to me why BAA had not carried out this technical re-assessment many years sooner given their repeated press releases about trying to attract further long-haul flights.
Regardless of whatever BAA did or didn’t do during their period of ownership, the good news for passengers that use EDI is that GIP have invested and continue to invest in PCN and other upgrades and are planning to invest in the stands necessary to allow regular long-range wide-bodied ops. I hope this investment provides them with a suitable return on investment and that EDI’s long-haul route network will see further expansion in the not too distant future.
A brief summary is;
Runway 06/24 is long enough for a decent selection of long range wide-bodied routes with a decent selection of wide-bodied aircraft types but the technical data published during the BAA era indicated that it was neither long enough nor strong enough for all such aircraft to operate at their respective max take-off weights. That said, the most likely potential medium / long-range routes from EDI wouldn't require take-offs at maximum weights or require a longer runway. By way of example, during the BAA era, a reasonable selection of medium and long-range routes would have been possible with non-winglet B763s (using existing main apron stands) and with A332s (if a suitable main apron stand had been created for this aircraft type). A stand for larger wide-bodied aircraft might have been possible by, for example, reinstating stand 6A and/or reinstating the diagonal stand that used to exist between stands 11 and 14. Other potential locations for stands for larger wide-bodied aircraft are conceivable
One of the significant limitations I established after reviewing detailed technical data published by NATS, Boeing and Airbus was that the PCNs of the aprons and (to a marginally lesser extent) the runway (06/24) that were published during the BAA era limited the payload / range of a B773ER quite significantly unless ops were sanctioned with a significant ACN>PCN overload. I checked with BAA to see whether my conclusions were correct and they agreed with my assessment. These PCNs would presumably have been one of the factors that influenced Emirates decision to operate from GLA rather than EDI but other considerations might have also been important. I’m not party to Emirates deliberations on this subject but the PCNs and other facilities at EDI for such flights at the time that Emirates made their decision were demonstrably inferior from an operational perspective (including potential payload / range) to those available at GLA at the time.
As has been pointed out, the SE apron has a number of stands capable of handling larger wide-bodied aircraft however the PCNs of taxiways Lima and Mike that link that apron with Taxiway Alpha had a published PCN, during the BAA era, that prohibited regular use of these stands for long-range wide-bodied ops. B773ERs to Paris and A332s to Dublin for rugby charters and certain other wide-bodied flights were permitted as one-off ops on an occasional basis but take-off weights (and therefore ACNs) for most of these flights would be low compared to long-range ops.
Three main apron stands were (and still are) able to accommodate aircraft up to TriStar / A310 / B752W / B763 (without winglets) size. One of these was almost exclusively a BA shuttle stand. There had been various stands on the main apron over the years that had been able to accommodate aircraft up to B744 size but terminal alterations and apron re-layouts by BAA eliminated all of these at various times over the past 40 years. Perhaps one or more of these stands could have been retained / reinstated (as mentioned above) but BAA chose not to.
Delta operated regular B763 flights from EDI for a time but the arrival time in Atlanta was quite late (IIRC it left EDI at 13:45). Every time I considered using this service, my onward connection arrived in my ultimate destination in USA just before or after midnight. By the time I would have collected my bags and reached my hotel it would be about 2 a.m. or later. As a result, I never used the service and I suspect that many other potential passengers felt the same as me. Whether the arrival / departure time at EDI was constrained by the availability of EDI stands/ slots or ATL stands / slots or some other reason I couldn’t say for certain, but the two stands that were able to accommodate the Delta B763 were heavily utilised during the morning for B752 ops and, too often, the Delta B763 would arrive and no suitable stand would be available. My suspicion is therefore that the Delta B763 arrival and departure time was constrained by a shortage of suitable stands at EDI.
It's interesting to note that during the week that GIP took over operations at EDI, the PCNs of many parts of the airfield were significantly upgraded without (as far as I know) any physical works having been undertaken. In the period between then and now, further PCN upgrades have been declared (via NATS) and I expect that more will follow quite soon.
Whether or not BAA knowingly understated the PCNs during the preceding years I couldn't say but I was somewhat surprised to see circa 45 year old pavements being upgraded from C strength sub-grade to A strength as a result of a change of ownership before GIP had carried out any physical works. One possible explanation is that GIP technically re-assessed the PCNs of these sections of pavement (perhaps during due-diligence surveys prior to the purchase) but perhaps there is another explanation. It is not clear to me why BAA had not carried out this technical re-assessment many years sooner given their repeated press releases about trying to attract further long-haul flights.
Regardless of whatever BAA did or didn’t do during their period of ownership, the good news for passengers that use EDI is that GIP have invested and continue to invest in PCN and other upgrades and are planning to invest in the stands necessary to allow regular long-range wide-bodied ops. I hope this investment provides them with a suitable return on investment and that EDI’s long-haul route network will see further expansion in the not too distant future.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three main apron stands were (and still are) able to accommodate aircraft up to TriStar / A310 / B752W / B763 (without winglets) size.