Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Airlines, Airports & Routes
Reload this Page >

BAA confirms it will sell Edinburgh!

Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

BAA confirms it will sell Edinburgh!

Old 19th Oct 2011, 09:21
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 59
BAA confirms it will sell Edinburgh!

BAA confirms it will sell Edinburgh airport to satisfy competition concerns
by skynewsbreak via twitter 11:06 AM


Thoughts everyone? I guess EDI will give a better return for it's money than GLA at this time!

Solent
solent is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2011, 09:56
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The M77...
Age: 38
Posts: 111
I didn't expect that. I expected Glasgow to be sold.

However it is interesting, I think that this is a short term decision by BAA management. They have seen that in this tough financial climate Edinburgh will gain a higher instant price than Glasgow. However in the long term, I'm not convinced that Glasgow will be the airport that makes the money.

However, let's wait and see how it all unfolds...
The Hypnoboon is online now  
Old 19th Oct 2011, 10:04
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Livingston and Edinburgh
Age: 82
Posts: 844
Not entirely unexpected as I predicted a few weeks ago.
Getting BAA out of Glasgow would be like pulling teeth. Let's see if they
now transfer some of Edinburgh's assets west.
Joe Curry is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2011, 10:12
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The M77...
Age: 38
Posts: 111
Personally I think (as I've said on the Prestwick may be sold thread) that there could be potential for EDI's new owner to buy PIK too and really turn the screw on GLA.

Interesting times ahead for all three airports...
The Hypnoboon is online now  
Old 19th Oct 2011, 10:24
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Livingston and Edinburgh
Age: 82
Posts: 844
If it's true that EDI's PCN and ACN strengths are unsuitable for heavies
we will at least have confirmation when the new owner takes over.
BAA might find that EDI isn't so attractive after all? Plus, will BAA place
covenants on EDI operations.?
Joe Curry is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2011, 11:28
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: North of Hadrian's Wall
Posts: 115
Joe, I wouldn't worry about BAA placing any sort of contractual restrictions on a new EDI owner. Competition, or the perceived lack of it, is why the Competition Commission is forcing the sale in the first place and so I'm sure they wouldn't wear any such tactics by BAA for one second. Besides which they are selling in what is essentially a buyer's market.

As for the load issues, I understand that it's a fairly limited stretch of taxiway that needs strengthened which, in the overall scheme of things, shouldn't be that expensive to deal with.

Let's hope that the new owners have the resources to invest in further development at Scotland's premier air transport hub. Might Gatwick's Global Infrastructure Partners be interested?
theredbarron is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2011, 11:44
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Livingston and Edinburgh
Age: 82
Posts: 844
Let's hope that the new owners have the resources to invest in further development at Scotland's premier air transport hub.
Indeed. It's going to be an interesting year of wheeling and dealing first.
Will FR be seduced to GLA..Will EK and the High Street leisure market be
wooed to EDI?
Joe Curry is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2011, 13:10
  #8 (permalink)  
BarbiesBoyfriend
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I don't think it's ant secret that the BAA would have preferred to keep EDI and sell GLA.

During the last year or so, it became clear that selling EDI would yield more money (a lot more) than selling GLA.

Ferrovial is short of money, in fact they have large debts, so EDI it is.

From a 'creating competition' point of view, this has to be the best outcome. Had GLA been sold instead of EDI, I think there would have been very little extra competition between them as GLA is already competing with PIK (unlike EDI).

As it is, GLA will have to compete directly with EDI while still competing with PIK (although PIK could be a big loser if FR were to move to GLA, for example).

The big gainers here must be the pax and possibly the airlines?

The loser? BAA.





As a weegie, I'd just like to say, 'Yaldy!'
 
Old 19th Oct 2011, 14:01
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: North of Hadrian's Wall
Posts: 115
It will be interesting to see if EDI's new owners can pick up more of the leisure market. It does already have a reasonable share but the majority is carried by scheduled LOCOs rather than on charters as at Glasgow. The good folks in the travel industry tell me that inclusive tours are regaining lost ground from DIY holidays and so if EDI does want to make ground here it presumably has to entice more IT operators in.
theredbarron is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2011, 18:11
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
The money is in Scheduled airlines not charter, and with Gla having a longer runway and already strengthened pavements for planes (EDI needing major work to upgrade those and no runway extension planned) Suppose keeping Glasgow was the sensible choice.

You do feel that one of these airports will sadly slip backwards.

Nigel
nigel osborne is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2011, 18:35
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Blighty
Posts: 4,085
Nigel - what makes you think either of GLA or EDI will slip back in the years to come ? Not saying you are wrong - just curious as to your line of thinking
davidjohnson6 is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2011, 19:15
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 39
Posts: 6,168
GLA has already fallen quite some way, partly but not exclusively due to more BAA focus at EDI making up for years of neglect. The runway's pretty comparable to BHX, DUB and GLA.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2011, 14:07
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: North of Hadrian's Wall
Posts: 115
Nigel O, EDI's runway is only a little shorter than Glasgow's (by around 600 feet) and according to someone who should know (an Emirates 777 first officer) is quite capable of getting one of their 773ERs off at max gross. And, as I said in an earlier post, the relatively small stretch of taxiway strengthening needed is not a particularly big civil engineering job as the underlying terrain is pretty solid and stable (unlike Glasgow's marshland). I doubt if anyone is planning on operating anything bigger than a 777 in the forseable future and so the problems are nowhere as large as you appear to think they are.
theredbarron is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2011, 03:44
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 59
Posts: 504
theredbarron said;
Nigel O, EDI's runway is only a little shorter than Glasgow's (by around 600 feet) and according to someone who should know (an Emirates 777 first officer) is quite capable of getting one of their 773ERs off at max gross.
For this statement to be true either EDI are prepared to allow an extremely large ACN>PCN overload, which I doubt would be permitted under CAA CAP168, or Boeing's published performance figures for the 773ER are wrong. Iím quite certain that Boeingís figures are correct and it is extremely unlikely that such a high ACN>PCN overload would be permitted under CAP168; therefore I believe that the Emirates first officer is either mistaken or misinformed.

The main and SE aprons at EDI have a PCN of 72/R/C/W/T. Taxiway Alpha and runway 06/24 are slightly stronger, but that's academic as the aircraft would be loaded on the apron so that constrains the maximum weight. Taxiways Lima and Mike have a PCN of 31/F/C/X/T so until at least one of these strengthened (or a suitable stand is created on the main apron) the ACN>PCN overload of a 773ER at max gross weight at EDI would be enormous.

The 773ER at max gross weight has an ACN of 109 on the main and SE aprons at EDI vs. a PCN of 72. On taxiways Lima and Mike it has an ACN of 89 vs. a PCN of 31. Under CAP168 EDI might permit a 10% ACN>PCN overload but that is by no means certain. In any case, a 773ER at max gross weight would exceed the PCN of taxiways Lima and Mike by 132%. Even if these links are strengthened (or if a suitable stand is created on the main apron) a 773ER at max gross weight would exceed the PCN of the aprons at EDI by over 51%. At max gross weight on a standard day at sea level a 773ER needs a 10,000ft runway. EDIís is 8,386ft.

In summary there is no way (given the current pavement strengths and runway length) that a 773ER could operate from EDI at max gross weight. Even if Taxiway Lima is brought up to the equivalent strength of the SE apron at some stage in the future, there is considerable doubt about whether a 773ER could reach Dubai with an economic payload given the other PCN limitations at EDI.

Data sources;
Boeing: Commercial Airplanes - Commercial Aviation Services - Flight Operations Support - Airport Technology - 777 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning (3.0 Airplane Performance and 7.0 Pavement Data)
NATS | AIS - Home

For an explanation of ACNs and PCNs see;
Aircraft Classification Number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pavement Classification Number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

theredbarron said;
And, as I said in an earlier post, the relatively small stretch of taxiway strengthening needed is not a particularly big civil engineering job as the underlying terrain is pretty solid and stable (unlike Glasgow's marshland).
I have heard that Taxiway Lima will be getting worked on over the winter. Whether or not this will resolve the PCN limitations remains to be seen. As regards Glasgow's PCNs; they are much stronger than EDI's so your comment about underlying terrain is not relevant. EDI's runways and taxiways are built on a low strength sub-grade whilst GLA's are built on a medium strength sub-grade. The sub-grade strength makes a significant difference. GLA's main runway has a PCN of 65/R/B/W/T which to the untrained eye might look lower than EDIís but the stronger sub-grade at GLA (denoted by the letter B) makes a significant difference. The ACN of a 773ER on GLAís pavements is 85 so at max gross weight it would have an ACN>PCN overload of 31% (compared with an overload of 132% or 51% at EDI depending on whether or not taxiway Lima is strengthened). The net result is that a 773ER can depart GLA with a much higher payload/range than would be possible at EDI. This may explain why Emirates chose to operate from GLA rather than EDI. (NB. The NATS data for GLA does not give PCNs for the aprons.)

theredbarron said;
I doubt if anyone is planning on operating anything bigger than a 777 in the forseable future and so the problems are nowhere as large as you appear to think they are.
Size / weight and ACN are not necessarily directly related e.g. a B744 has a much lower ACN than a 773ER because it spreads its weight across four main undercarriage legs rather than two. The 773ER is the currently the worst commercial passenger aircraft for pavement loading at EDI. There are other aircraft that are better suited to the PCNs at EDI such as the A332, provided that Taxiway Lima is strengthened (or a suitable stand is created on the main apron).
Porrohman is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2011, 09:22
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Abbotsinch,Scotland
Posts: 190
Thanks for the info Porrohman , at last someone on this thread who knows what they're talking about, which gives us all an insight into to one of the many reasons that BAA chose to sell EDI first ! Clearly , expanding EDI to cope with larger a/c on a regular basis would be costly and cause disruption whereas GLA has it all in place already , apart from a 380 stand !
billyg is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2011, 10:13
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Livingston and Edinburgh
Age: 82
Posts: 844
Whatever the price being paid it should reflect the cost of bringing EDI's
ACN/PCN up to acceptable large aircraft standards. One thing emerging from this debate is the fact that BAA have 'calmed' EDI in order to divert large
aircraft handling to GLA. I honestly hope they will be repaid for such blatant shortsightedness with the kind of low bids that EDI is worth given it's limitations.
Joe Curry is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2011, 16:28
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LV
Posts: 1,832
Thats an odd conclusion to come to. Does the long haul widebody routes that were at EDI not count ( DL 767 ATL, TS A310) ?
Can the same be applied then to all the short haul schedules, was that diverted to EDI....? No, thought not.
CabinCrewe is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2011, 18:00
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Livingston and Edinburgh
Age: 82
Posts: 844
EDI not count ( DL 767 ATL, TS A310)
ATL slot too late in the day for some connections from ATL, as for A310 etc
we are talking about replacements that EDI obviously does not have the physical infrastructure for. We can both whistle until the cows come home but
until the infrastructure at EDI is upgraded neither of us can be proved right or wrong. One thing is emerging though, EDI has lost A330/A340/B764/B747/
B773 to GLA for no other reason than the fact it cannot handle them on a regular daily basis.
Joe Curry is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2011, 18:33
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LV
Posts: 1,832
EDI has lost A330/A340/B764/B747/
B773 to GLA for no other reason than the fact it cannot handle them on a regular daily basis

Id keep whistling if I was you...
CabinCrewe is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2011, 18:50
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Livingston and Edinburgh
Age: 82
Posts: 844
Id keep whistling if I was you...
You obviously actually believe long haul is located at GLA by demand rather than BAA's design. I should remind you that EDI outperforms most routes
duplicated evenly at GLA, given large aircraft capability, long haul would be no different.
Joe Curry is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.