EDINBURGH
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LV
Posts: 2,296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, Thomson are offering CUN and SFB this summer (albeit just three flights), which compared to other UK departures points is a rather odd schedule. Maybe tour operators testing the Florida water again from EDI, lets hope the high prices don't put holidaymakers off! 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do recall someone stating somewhere that EDI - Middle East would start by autumn 2011. Hopefully any plans have just been delayed and not abandoned.
Does anyone have any info?
Does anyone have any info?
I've heard rumours that they've cancelled their EDI plans - would hardly be surprising imho, especially with the 2x daily EK 77Ws to GLA. Shame if indeed true - Turkish would've been an excellent niche route for EDI.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, Thomson are offering CUN and SFB this summer (albeit just three flights), which compared to other UK departures points is a rather odd schedule. Maybe tour operators testing the Florida water again from EDI, lets hope the high prices don't put holidaymakers off!
Nah, the (ridiculously!) high prices haven't seemed to put folk off on their GLA flights over the years. Hopefully EDI-CUN/SFB will do well.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it wasn't TK.
It was a ME3 route that was mentioned. Hopefully the EK expansion at GLA hasn't caused the abandonment of the plans.
I've been looking forward to seeing more long haul from EDI for years. Every time I'm through there I get bored with all the loco short haul stuff.
G
It was a ME3 route that was mentioned. Hopefully the EK expansion at GLA hasn't caused the abandonment of the plans.
I've been looking forward to seeing more long haul from EDI for years. Every time I'm through there I get bored with all the loco short haul stuff.
G
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Warwickshire
Posts: 1,058
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TK
You need to be patient with TK, it was a will they/won't they rumour situation at BHX for two years or so before they eventually launched. Interestingly, TK actually listed GLA as a new destination in their in flight magazine I think in Dec 09 or Jan 10 and it still didn't end up happening....
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
For an explanation of part of the reason why Emirates chose GLA rather than EDI, see my post 1091 i.e.;
By way of comparison, here are the estimated maximum take off weights (MTOW) for a 773ER for GLA, NCL and EDI on a "Standard Day" assuming that ACN = PCN. (Sources of data are Boeing's detailed technical performance data for the 773ER and the NATS data for each airport).
Edinburgh;
MTOW = 595,000lbs. Limiting factor is the PCN of the main apron. At this weight it needs slightly less than 6,000ft of runway. The PCN of the runway is only marginally higher than the main apron so, if the aprons were strengthened it would make little difference to the calculation unless the runway and taxiway alpha were also strengthened. This assumes that a main apron stand can be created. The only place I think that might be suitable for a 773ER would be to create a diagonal stand where stands 11 and 14 are. The alternative would be to strengthen taxiway Lima and use the SE apron, although stand 17 is slightly too short for a 773ER. Perhaps that could be remedied by use of a pot of paint though.
Glasgow;
MTOW = 657,000lbs. Limiting factor is the PCN of the runway (NATS doesn't give PCNs for the aprons at GLA). At this weight it needs just over 7,000ft of runway.
Newcastle;
MTOW = 664,000lbs on runway 25 and 676,000lbs on runway 07. At these weights, the limiting factor is the runway length. The PCN of the main apron is good for 688,000lbs so a runway extension would increase the MTOW in the dry and an extension would be even more beneficial if the runway was wet. The runway PCN would be good for 728,000lbs if the aprons were stronger and the runway was extended by a few hundred metres. The advantage that Newcastle has is that its aprons and runway have a higher PCN that GLA or EDI even though its runway is shorter.
Just for a laugh, I checked to see what the MTOW would be at SYY.
Stornoway;
MTOW = 635,000lbs assuming that you park it on the runway, as the taxiways are too weak. Limiting factor for this is the PCN of the runway (not the length).
If a 10% ACN>PCN overload is allowed under CAP168 (this might happen or maybe it wouldn’t) then the above calculations would need to be revised.
Looking at these MTOW figures, it’s easy to see that Emirates B773ERs are much better suited to the PCNs at GLA and NCL than they are to the much weaker PCNs at EDI.
If, as has been rumoured, one of the other ME carriers is about to announce a route from EDI then it would require either a suitable stand to be created on the main apron or the links to the SE apron to be strengthened. As far as I know, all the stands on the main apron are too short and too narrow for an A330-200 (which seems to be the most likely equipment) so a diagonal stand would need to be created. Technically this is feasible but operationally it will present some challenges e.g. it will take up the space of two stands and stands are scarce at peak times. Also, who do you shift? BA? BMI? Someone else? Or use stands 2 and 3? Or ???
Even if a suitable stand could be created, given the multitude of factors that could delay either of the two aircraft occupying the stand before the A332 arrives and given the likelihood that the A332 will itself be delayed by a few hours from time to time, I can see many occasions when stand availability becomes an issue. It caused problems for Delta from time to time and, in theory at least, there were three stands on the main apron that were suitable for their B763 (2, 4 and 10, although BA seems to have virtually exclusive use of stand 10). In the short term there may only be one stand suitable for an A332 and that would require at least two ordinary stands to be simultaneously vacant.
As for Delta, their slot for the ATL flight at EDI was too late in the day (IIRC it departed EDI at 13:45) meaning that onward connection opportunities at Atlanta were less attractive. Every time I looked at connecting through Atlanta, my arrival time at my end destination in the USA was around midnight so by the time I would have collected my bags, picked up a hire car and driven to my hotel, then unpacked and got ready for bed it would have been 02:00 at best and probably a lot later. That may suit some people, but not me. Given the lack of large stands on the main apron at EDI, and the weak PCNs leading to the SE apron, I don't believe that an earlier slot would have been possible as there are only two suitable stands at the international end of the terminal and both of these were being used by a variety of B752s. If DL had been able to get a slot at EDI arriving at, say, 07:30 and departing at 09:30 I think their load factors and yield would have been a lot better. As it was, there were too many delays caused by the inadequacies of the infrastructure e.g. shortage of suitable stands and that ridiculous corridor arrangement which has been commented on previously in this thread.
I also considered taking the Delta JFK flight on a number of occasions. The problem with this flight was that the onward connections were terrible. Typically there was a 4 or 6 hour wait for a suitable connection and often this involved a change of airport to LaGuardia. CO connections via Newark were invariably far better.
The SFB and CAN flights this summer will presumably be operating from the SE apron because a B763W is too wide for stands 2 or 4. This will therefore involve a very significant ACN>PCN situation. This can be permitted on an occasional basis under CAP168 subject to very careful inspection of the pavement after each such operation but is unlikely to be permitted on a more regular basis, hence the reason why it is a very limited season of flights and the reason why long-haul ops with anything larger than a B752 are a rare occurrence at EDI.
For what it's worth, I don't think there will be any announcement of a ME route from EDI in the immediate future. If I were Ethiad, Qatar Airways or Gulf Air, I would see EDI's infrastructure as being less than ideal for the time being with the risk of resulting delays being too high. I hope I'm wrong but I suspect I am not. Time will tell.
For EDI to attract further long-haul it needs to invest in suitable facilities. It’ll be interesting to see whether the new owners will see this as a priority.
The PCNs and runway length are not too much of a problem for most long-haul aircraft types / likely routes provided that a suitable stand is created on the main apron e.g. by reinstating stand 6A. The A330 for example seems to be quite well suited to Edinburgh and even a 747-400ER has a useful payload/range from there.
The B777-300ER is least suited to the Edinburgh PCNs due to its very high ACN. Unless an ACN>PCN overload is sanctioned, Boeing's detailed performance figures indicate that MTOW from Edinburgh would be about 595,000lbs which would not be enough for Edinburgh - Dubai with a full passenger load, even with no cargo on-board, unless there was a substantial tailwind. As this is the mainstay of the Emirates fleet (the smaller Airbuses and Boeings are mostly due to be phased out) it's easy to see why Emirates has not yet chosen to operate from Edinburgh.
If a stand cannot be created on the main apron then the weak PCNs between the SE apron and Taxiway Alpha currently preclude regular long-haul widebody departures as the PCN is less than half the strength needed.
The B777-300ER is least suited to the Edinburgh PCNs due to its very high ACN. Unless an ACN>PCN overload is sanctioned, Boeing's detailed performance figures indicate that MTOW from Edinburgh would be about 595,000lbs which would not be enough for Edinburgh - Dubai with a full passenger load, even with no cargo on-board, unless there was a substantial tailwind. As this is the mainstay of the Emirates fleet (the smaller Airbuses and Boeings are mostly due to be phased out) it's easy to see why Emirates has not yet chosen to operate from Edinburgh.
If a stand cannot be created on the main apron then the weak PCNs between the SE apron and Taxiway Alpha currently preclude regular long-haul widebody departures as the PCN is less than half the strength needed.
Edinburgh;
MTOW = 595,000lbs. Limiting factor is the PCN of the main apron. At this weight it needs slightly less than 6,000ft of runway. The PCN of the runway is only marginally higher than the main apron so, if the aprons were strengthened it would make little difference to the calculation unless the runway and taxiway alpha were also strengthened. This assumes that a main apron stand can be created. The only place I think that might be suitable for a 773ER would be to create a diagonal stand where stands 11 and 14 are. The alternative would be to strengthen taxiway Lima and use the SE apron, although stand 17 is slightly too short for a 773ER. Perhaps that could be remedied by use of a pot of paint though.
Glasgow;
MTOW = 657,000lbs. Limiting factor is the PCN of the runway (NATS doesn't give PCNs for the aprons at GLA). At this weight it needs just over 7,000ft of runway.
Newcastle;
MTOW = 664,000lbs on runway 25 and 676,000lbs on runway 07. At these weights, the limiting factor is the runway length. The PCN of the main apron is good for 688,000lbs so a runway extension would increase the MTOW in the dry and an extension would be even more beneficial if the runway was wet. The runway PCN would be good for 728,000lbs if the aprons were stronger and the runway was extended by a few hundred metres. The advantage that Newcastle has is that its aprons and runway have a higher PCN that GLA or EDI even though its runway is shorter.
Just for a laugh, I checked to see what the MTOW would be at SYY.
Stornoway;
MTOW = 635,000lbs assuming that you park it on the runway, as the taxiways are too weak. Limiting factor for this is the PCN of the runway (not the length).
If a 10% ACN>PCN overload is allowed under CAP168 (this might happen or maybe it wouldn’t) then the above calculations would need to be revised.
Looking at these MTOW figures, it’s easy to see that Emirates B773ERs are much better suited to the PCNs at GLA and NCL than they are to the much weaker PCNs at EDI.
If, as has been rumoured, one of the other ME carriers is about to announce a route from EDI then it would require either a suitable stand to be created on the main apron or the links to the SE apron to be strengthened. As far as I know, all the stands on the main apron are too short and too narrow for an A330-200 (which seems to be the most likely equipment) so a diagonal stand would need to be created. Technically this is feasible but operationally it will present some challenges e.g. it will take up the space of two stands and stands are scarce at peak times. Also, who do you shift? BA? BMI? Someone else? Or use stands 2 and 3? Or ???
Even if a suitable stand could be created, given the multitude of factors that could delay either of the two aircraft occupying the stand before the A332 arrives and given the likelihood that the A332 will itself be delayed by a few hours from time to time, I can see many occasions when stand availability becomes an issue. It caused problems for Delta from time to time and, in theory at least, there were three stands on the main apron that were suitable for their B763 (2, 4 and 10, although BA seems to have virtually exclusive use of stand 10). In the short term there may only be one stand suitable for an A332 and that would require at least two ordinary stands to be simultaneously vacant.
As for Delta, their slot for the ATL flight at EDI was too late in the day (IIRC it departed EDI at 13:45) meaning that onward connection opportunities at Atlanta were less attractive. Every time I looked at connecting through Atlanta, my arrival time at my end destination in the USA was around midnight so by the time I would have collected my bags, picked up a hire car and driven to my hotel, then unpacked and got ready for bed it would have been 02:00 at best and probably a lot later. That may suit some people, but not me. Given the lack of large stands on the main apron at EDI, and the weak PCNs leading to the SE apron, I don't believe that an earlier slot would have been possible as there are only two suitable stands at the international end of the terminal and both of these were being used by a variety of B752s. If DL had been able to get a slot at EDI arriving at, say, 07:30 and departing at 09:30 I think their load factors and yield would have been a lot better. As it was, there were too many delays caused by the inadequacies of the infrastructure e.g. shortage of suitable stands and that ridiculous corridor arrangement which has been commented on previously in this thread.
I also considered taking the Delta JFK flight on a number of occasions. The problem with this flight was that the onward connections were terrible. Typically there was a 4 or 6 hour wait for a suitable connection and often this involved a change of airport to LaGuardia. CO connections via Newark were invariably far better.
The SFB and CAN flights this summer will presumably be operating from the SE apron because a B763W is too wide for stands 2 or 4. This will therefore involve a very significant ACN>PCN situation. This can be permitted on an occasional basis under CAP168 subject to very careful inspection of the pavement after each such operation but is unlikely to be permitted on a more regular basis, hence the reason why it is a very limited season of flights and the reason why long-haul ops with anything larger than a B752 are a rare occurrence at EDI.
For what it's worth, I don't think there will be any announcement of a ME route from EDI in the immediate future. If I were Ethiad, Qatar Airways or Gulf Air, I would see EDI's infrastructure as being less than ideal for the time being with the risk of resulting delays being too high. I hope I'm wrong but I suspect I am not. Time will tell.
For EDI to attract further long-haul it needs to invest in suitable facilities. It’ll be interesting to see whether the new owners will see this as a priority.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that Delta had poor connecting times out of EDI but I had assumed that was an issue at the US end not the Scottish one. Is it really the case EDI management could not accommodate a single flagship long haul service on a legacy platform that entered service in the 1980s?
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
Is it really the case EDI management could not accommodate a single flagship long haul service on a legacy platform that entered service in the 1980s?
There are four stands at the international side that can take a standard B752. Stands 2, 3, and 4 are contact stands whilst stand 104 is on the opposite side of the cul-de-sac and can only be used when stand 103 is not in use. AFAIK, only two of these stands (2 and 4) can accept a B752W or a B763 and none can accept a B763W because the stands are too narrow. As more and more airlines fitted winglets to their B752s, it became increasingly difficult to accommodate B752Ws and B763s at EDI so on too many occasions the DL B763 had to wait for a stand to become available. Passengers and aircraft turnaround were then further delayed on too many occasions because of the ridiculous corridor arrangements between stand 4 and the immigration hall which mean that passengers cannot disembark from an aircraft on stand 4 if passengers are boarding an aircraft on stand 3.
The situation is now even worse as many airlines are fitting winglets to their B763s. B763Ws are too wide for stands 2 and 4 so they need to use the SE apron stands but this can only happen very occasionally due to the severe PCN restrictions on Taxiways Lima and Mike and the consequent CAP168 inspection requirements.
BAA's priority at EDI in recent years has been to improve the shops, restaurants and security rather than to fix the PCNs, sort the corridor arrangement from stands 3 and 4 to the immigration hall, make more large stands available and make a variety of other improvements that might make the airport more attractive to long-haul. I completely understand why BAA took that approach and I'm quite certain that it made very good business sense for them as a monopoly provider of commercial airport facilities in the Scotland and London, but it has done nothing to help attract further long-haul routes to EDI.
I’d like to think that the new owner will see the potential for long-haul from EDI and invest in the necessary facilities but there is no guarantee that this will happen. We’ll just have to wait and see.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Why is everyone desperate for long haul, EDI is doing just fine with their current portfolio ?"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't BAA delivered the following at Edinburgh -
Full length taxyways
New Iconic Control Tower
New Radar
South East Pier
A multitude of ramp/parking space for aircraft
Dealt In Ryanair
A large Cargo Apron that handles widebody freighters
Over 9m pax
Long Haul Delta to JFK/ATL came and went, as did Air Transat, and Travel City Direct IIRC.
Can't please some it seems
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't BAA delivered the following at Edinburgh -
Full length taxyways
New Iconic Control Tower
New Radar
South East Pier
A multitude of ramp/parking space for aircraft
Dealt In Ryanair
A large Cargo Apron that handles widebody freighters
Over 9m pax
Long Haul Delta to JFK/ATL came and went, as did Air Transat, and Travel City Direct IIRC.
Can't please some it seems
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
"For an explanation of part of the reason why Emirates chose GLA rather than EDI"
Interesting statement.
What's the other part(s) then?
Interesting statement.
What's the other part(s) then?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I'm sure Emirates will have had a number of reasons for choosing GLA and NCL rather than EDI and I wouldn't like to claim that the PCNs at EDI are the only reason but they would appear to be quite an important one. The others will include the shortage of large stands, poor international arrivals facilities and many other factors connected with the infrastructure. I don't to have access to Emirates' market research so there may be other reasons."
Have these 'PCN's' or lack thereoff been confirmed or denied by official BAA sources? Are you just guessing?
I look at NCL and what I see are facilities deficient to what Edinburgh has, maybe Emirates did their homework and never ever Intended to serve Edinburgh, maybe their preferred option all these years has always been Glasgow, nothing sinister.
Have these 'PCN's' or lack thereoff been confirmed or denied by official BAA sources? Are you just guessing?
I look at NCL and what I see are facilities deficient to what Edinburgh has, maybe Emirates did their homework and never ever Intended to serve Edinburgh, maybe their preferred option all these years has always been Glasgow, nothing sinister.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Full length taxyways
New Iconic Control Tower
New Radar
South East Pier
A multitude of ramp/parking space for aircraft
Dealt In Ryanair
A large Cargo Apron that handles widebody freighters
Over 9m pax
New Iconic Control Tower
New Radar
South East Pier
A multitude of ramp/parking space for aircraft
Dealt In Ryanair
A large Cargo Apron that handles widebody freighters
Over 9m pax
The key strategies of what do do with the cross runway and the lack of heavy parking were not addressed in favour of focus on retail soon after the paint was dry on the last revamp of the shops. I have seen EDI handle multple heavies on a day, indeed the then Five Nations saw Aer Lingus B747s every year handled adequately on the main apron. Indeed I well recall Caledonian TriStars being regulars in the summer, now we are having a debate about the aircraft type BA used on the shuttles every day for many years. Still the shops are lovely I'm sure.
They had a big chance to re-develop the whole area strategically, could have built a whole new terminal where the South East pier is now, opened it then demolished the no longer fit for purpose original. The danger now lies that the pendulum swings West again where the facilites are in place and the motorway access has finally been knocked into shape again. EDI's facilities for aircraft have nowhere left to go without spending MAJOR money. As I said, lovely shops though. I love a good shop.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok then, it's NOT 'Iconic'. You've obviously not seen GLA's lately.
And yes, radar is a neccesity, who said it wasn't? And what's your point re the observations I've made re Edinburgh's 'enhancements' in the last 10 years or so?
If your pendulum swings west so be it, maybe it should never have swung east in the first place.
And yes, radar is a neccesity, who said it wasn't? And what's your point re the observations I've made re Edinburgh's 'enhancements' in the last 10 years or so?
If your pendulum swings west so be it, maybe it should never have swung east in the first place.
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
"Why is everyone desperate for long haul, EDI is doing just fine with their current portfolio ?"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't BAA delivered the following at Edinburgh -
Full length taxyways
New Iconic Control Tower
New Radar
South East Pier
A multitude of ramp/parking space for aircraft
Dealt In Ryanair
A large Cargo Apron that handles widebody freighters
Over 9m pax
Long Haul Delta to JFK/ATL came and went, as did Air Transat, and Travel City Direct IIRC.
Can't please some it seems [IMG]file:///C:/Users/Colin/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't BAA delivered the following at Edinburgh -
Full length taxyways
New Iconic Control Tower
New Radar
South East Pier
A multitude of ramp/parking space for aircraft
Dealt In Ryanair
A large Cargo Apron that handles widebody freighters
Over 9m pax
Long Haul Delta to JFK/ATL came and went, as did Air Transat, and Travel City Direct IIRC.
Can't please some it seems [IMG]file:///C:/Users/Colin/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]
"All operators, including executive and private general aviation, must make prior arrangements with a handling agent for the ground handling of all flights. Due to limited parking space all aircraft are PPR with their handling agent."
"Airline operators are requested to note that stand availability is extremely limited, particularly at night and for large wide-bodied aircraft."
Travel City Direct flights to SFB must have been constrained by the PCN limitations and inspections under CAP168 and the shortage of suitable stands for the 747 they used. I suspect that Air Transat struggled to get suitable stands at times that suited them for the reasons that I explained in my earlier post.
The South Cargo apron can handle widebodies in terms of stand size but only on short range routes and only subject to a regular CAP168 inspection regime. This is because that apron is connected to taxiway alpha by runway 12/30 which has a PCN of just 31/F/C/X/T. This is less than half of the strength that would be necessary for a heavily loaded widebody. (E.g. a fully loaded B762ER has an ACN on that surface of 68 versus a PCN of 31) Also, BAA in their wisdom built that apron with an ultra weak subgrade (79/R/D/W/T) so it will be unsuitable for many long-haul wide-bodied cargo flights in the future even if runway 12/30 and taxiways Lima and Mike are strengthened. E.g. a B772F has a maximum ACN of 127 on the South Cargo Apron (vs. PCN of 79) because of the D grade subgrade. To quote Wikipedia;
A subgrade of D would be very weak, like uncompacted soil.
So, yes, the apron space is a welcome addition but its usefulness at present is constrained by the weakness of 12/30 and in the future by them having used the very weakest of subgrades.
For anyone who is unfamiliar with ACNs and PCNs the following articles in Wikipedia will explain; Pavement Classification Number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Aircraft Classification Number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[Subsequent corrections are in bold italics]
Last edited by Porrohman; 30th Jan 2012 at 22:03.
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
Have these 'PCN's' or lack thereoff been confirmed or denied by official BAA sources? Are you just guessing?
I look at NCL and what I see are facilities deficient to what Edinburgh has, maybe Emirates did their homework and never ever Intended to serve Edinburgh, maybe their preferred option all these years has always been Glasgow, nothing sinister.
Last edited by Porrohman; 30th Jan 2012 at 22:06.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've obviously not seen GLA's lately.
Let's be clear, Air Transat did not leave because the A310 was too big for EDI and Delta did not swap ATL for JFK because the paving was an issue. These were commercial decisions where the asset was deployed in more profitable markets elsewhere.