EDINBURGH - 2
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
whats with the obsession with PCNs- its made jack sh*t difference to any of the comings and goings much to the stories and theories in the past.
To illustrate the importance of PCNs and ACNs, the approximate weight limits for relevant parts of the EDI infrastructure for a B773ER are as follows. The restrictions that apply to any particular flight depend upon which apron and taxiways the aircraft uses;
- Empty weight ~380,000lbs
- PCN of Taxiway Lima; ~390,000lbs at ACN=PCN (See page 153 of Boeing data - this chart doesn't go as low as ACN=31 for a C strength subgrade so I extrapolated)
- PCN of Taxiway Mike; ~530,000lbs at ACN=PCN (See page 153 of Boeing data)
- PCN of Main Apron and SE Apron (72/R/C/W/T); ~595,000lbs at ACN=PCN (See page 156 of Boeing data)
- PCN of Taxiway Alpha A8-A16 (70/F/A/W/T) ~667,000lbs at ACN=PCN (See page 153 of Boeing data)
- PCN of Runway 06/24 (87/R/C/W/T); ~675,000lbs at ACN=PCN (See page 156 of Boeing data)
- Length of Runway 06/24; ~712,000lbs on a Standard Day (See page 48 of Boeing data)
- PCN of Taxiway Alpha A1-A8 AND A16-D1 (120/R/C/W/T) no restriction (See page 156 of Boeing data)
NB. Maximum take-off wight of a B773ER is 775,000lbs where airport infrustracture is compatible.
Sources; http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/com...777_2lr3er.pdf and NATS | AIS - Home
Exact weights depend on a great many more factors than are addressed in the referenced charts so these figures are just indicative. Actual figures for a given aircraft on a given day operated by a given airline could vary significantly for a huge variety of reasons.
I've used the B773ER as an extreme example of the PCN limitations. Other aircraft types are better suited to EDI's various current limitations.
Many years ago, I wondered whether the runway length at EDI was an impediment to long-haul flights but it transpired that PCNs and stand sizes were more of a constraint. A B773ER operating from the only stand at EDI that is currently large enough to accommodate it (stand 17 on SE apron) is currently payload/range limited by the weakness of taxiway Mike (~530,000lbs for ACN=PCN). During BAA ownership, taxiways Lima and Mike had the same PCN (31/F/C/X/T) so the payload/range back then was limited by the weakness of Taxiway Lima (~390,000lbs for ACN=PCN). Interestingly, the upgrade to the PCN of taxiway Mike occurred about one week after GIP took control and was prior to any strengthening works taking place. Taxiway Mike must already have been that strength, but the data provided by BAA to NATS, for whatever reason, had been more conservative than GIP's assessment of its strength. If the new stand 12 on the main apron is large enough for a B773ER the payload/range is limited by the PCN of the main apron (~595,000lbs at ACN=PCN). If the main apron is strengthened, the payload/range is limited by the PCN of the centre section of taxiway Alpha (~667,000lbs at ACN=PCN). If that is strengthened, the payload/range is limited by the PCN of runway 06/24 (~675,000lbs at ACN=PCN). If the runway is strengthened, the constrain becomes the length of runway 06/24 (~712,000lbs on a Standard Day). Assuming that ACN=PCN then PCNs are more of an issue for a B773ER at EDI than runway length on a Standard Day.
As previously mentioned, there's a possibility that a 10% ACN>PCN overload might be allowed but, assuming that the data that EDI provided to NATS is correct, taxiways Lima and Mike are weak-points of the current infrastructure at EDI. NB. On an occasional basis, ACN>PCN overloads greater than 10% can and have been permitted, but CAP168 requires inspection of the pavement by a competent engineer after each such operation. This explains the occasional operation of larger aircraft from the SE apron and also explains why such operations are not regularly undertaken from the SE Apron.
GIP are gradually improving the situation and I expect that, if there is the demand, they will make further improvements provided that the payback justifies the investment.
Last edited by Porrohman; 15th Jan 2015 at 10:26. Reason: Added some historic information about Taxiway Mike. Added reference to CAP168. Clarified the para about runway length v PCNs
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
Tiktak24 said;
This is the new stand 12 which should become operational in the spring and is basically just a new centreline in between, and therefore incorporating, stands 11 and 14. It is initially intended for the Etihad and Qatar Airways flights. The former is a morning A332 flight and the latter is an early afternoon B788. Stand 12 used to exist many years ago but the centreline was removed not long after the SE Apron was built. It's still shown in the (somewhat dated) aerial view in Google Maps http://goo.gl/maps/FK0b6 but is missing in this (more recent) aerial view in Bing Maps http://binged.it/1KLGyhS .
The most likely long-haul destinations for an evening flight from EDI would be either the far east or middle east. What rumours about B777 flights have you heard Tiktak24?
Heard via a secondary source the imminent development of terminal and apron near stand 14 area will be capable of taking a B777 perhaps in the evening
The most likely long-haul destinations for an evening flight from EDI would be either the far east or middle east. What rumours about B777 flights have you heard Tiktak24?
Last edited by Porrohman; 15th Jan 2015 at 02:25.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 39
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that the stand can accommodate up to a 777 doesn't necessarily mean a 777 service is going to be launched. Let's remember that UA, AC, QR, EY, TK and many other airlines which serve EDI all have the 777 in their fleet. This development means that they can fly in a larger aircraft and still have direct terminal service rather than shoving it over to a remote stand or having to rely on steps. It could be a bit of much needed forward planning for EDI.
If a new airline is coming to EDI then it is unlikely to be EK, the only other viable 777 users who may launch a route would be CX or CA in my opinion anyway.
If a new airline is coming to EDI then it is unlikely to be EK, the only other viable 777 users who may launch a route would be CX or CA in my opinion anyway.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The redevelopement of the apron is not just the stand itself but a widening of the shoulders at F1 to make manoeuvrability of a B777 easier to and from the Alpha taxiway.
Whilst agreeing that does not make the current rumour about Emirates true, I doubt the airport would go to this expense unless they were sure that a B777 was going to be a very regular visitor.
Whilst agreeing that does not make the current rumour about Emirates true, I doubt the airport would go to this expense unless they were sure that a B777 was going to be a very regular visitor.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LV
Posts: 2,296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
surely its just for QR and EY fleet flexibility and availability of them each or either using their 777s if needed. Brand new 777 operator to EDI in near future- personally cant see it. The shoulder enhancements - were they not always planned as a rolling upgrade and on grand scheme if things are of minimal investment value and easy to do.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Livingston and Edinburgh
Age: 86
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Massive? seems a bit ambitious for a big portakabin! Winder how this compares to the figure of investment that was planned by the original owner. I had a feeling they had plan for much more. Do the GIP investment partners still fatten up them sell off with all the profits?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you read the airport's press release it confirms there will be airbridges. The graphic doesn't show that level of detail. As for BAA , talk was cheap for them, but we shouldn't forget that before the competition commission gave them the boot they 'revised down' their projected numbers of passengers travelling on long haul flights at EDI. I don't know any serious commentator who would argue that EDI isn't many times better off under its new, independent regime. There is no way all the long haul growth EDI has seen in the last year or two would be happening under the old BAA monopoly, nor would they be investing in a trippling of capacity for long haul aircraft. The point about GIP is that even if their intention was to sell in a few years time, which I doubt as EDI was a 100% ownership opportunity, 'fattening up' the airport with new routes and new infrastructure would be an essential part of that process. By contrast, BAA had a vested interest in the pax decline they presided over in their final year, and in failing to make a meaningful investment in facilities as they were forced out. I really don't see very many people who use EDI or indeed who work there pining for the olden days.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope you're right, the text says there will be airbridges but the graphic shows two B737 sized stands (preumably with bridges not shown) and a B777 parked on the old stand 12 with the building on the wrong side for a jetway.
The graphic needs to be wholly inaccurate for there to be two B777 sized new stands. It looks like possible two B757 sized stands with presumably airbridge access at the end of the SE Pier with the old stand 12 for up to B777s bussed outside of the new baggage hall?
The graphic needs to be wholly inaccurate for there to be two B777 sized new stands. It looks like possible two B757 sized stands with presumably airbridge access at the end of the SE Pier with the old stand 12 for up to B777s bussed outside of the new baggage hall?
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
It appears that the proposal to divert the Gogar Burn around the other side of the airfield has been dropped. This has presumably limited the scope for development of the aprons, taxiway and terminal.
The proposed arrangement does not create the expected unification of the main apron with the southeast apron. As a result, and unless it is remedied, the PCN of Taxiway Mike remains an impediment to regular long-haul wide-body operations from the large stands on the southeast apron. The illustration shows that the largest of these stands, stand 17 (the one with the LH 747), is adjacent to the elevated corridor and as a result has no gate lounge and no jetway.
I wonder whether the development plans will include extending the length of stands 6-10 by moving Taxiway Foxtrot closer to Taxiway Alpha. This could enable several widebody stands to be created, all with jetways, and gets around the PCN issue with Taxiway Mike. It would also provide a better opportunity to create gate lounges for long-haul.
The proposed arrangement does not create the expected unification of the main apron with the southeast apron. As a result, and unless it is remedied, the PCN of Taxiway Mike remains an impediment to regular long-haul wide-body operations from the large stands on the southeast apron. The illustration shows that the largest of these stands, stand 17 (the one with the LH 747), is adjacent to the elevated corridor and as a result has no gate lounge and no jetway.
I wonder whether the development plans will include extending the length of stands 6-10 by moving Taxiway Foxtrot closer to Taxiway Alpha. This could enable several widebody stands to be created, all with jetways, and gets around the PCN issue with Taxiway Mike. It would also provide a better opportunity to create gate lounges for long-haul.
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
Just realised that the LH 747 was cropped out of the photo in the linked article. Here is another image of the proposed works;
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B79ZmwdIAAEzZkP.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B79ZmwdIAAEzZkP.jpg:large
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Livingston and Edinburgh
Age: 86
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Massive? seems a bit ambitious for a big portakabin!
EDI investment.
"The first stage of the development will see the creation of a 2000m2 rapid-build structure to house a new state-of-the-art immigration hall, around which a bigger structure will be built over the next five years."
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston, Scotland
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The remarks made by Callum Johstone above are of course a personal opinion defunct of actual insider knowledge and in no way reflects the actual reality of the situation in the last years of BAA's control over EDI. The statement is not only factually incorrect on every count but demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge about EDI's progress and rise to be Scotlands number one airport under BAA's control and the point of sale.