EDINBURGH - 2
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Livingston and Edinburgh
Age: 86
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
personal opinion defunct of actual insider knowledge
Last edited by Joe Curry; 23rd Jan 2015 at 17:16. Reason: typo
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston, Scotland
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No I haven't and I wont be playing games about links. His statement is clearly a personal opinion as if he had any knowledge on BAAs operations then the post wouldnt be so far from reality.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A ludicrous statement from CJ (or is it JC in disguise 
) when it was obvious that BAA had poured millions of £ into Edinburgh (new east apron, cargo apron, ATC Tower, full length taxyways etc) in the run up to the enforced sale of one or t' other of their central belt airports, indeed it was a massive surprise when it was announced Edinburgh was the one to go.
) when it was obvious that BAA had poured millions of £ into Edinburgh (new east apron, cargo apron, ATC Tower, full length taxyways etc) in the run up to the enforced sale of one or t' other of their central belt airports, indeed it was a massive surprise when it was announced Edinburgh was the one to go.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston, Scotland
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I worked for BAA Scotland and I worked at EDI for many a year and I agree that everyone is allowed there opinion and equally people like yourself can prefer his view over mine, however unlike most people my views have internal knowledge and I actually can say with conviction that his points are factually incorrect.
After spending years working with committed people within BAA, many who remain to this day working at EDI for GIP and who helped make EDI a great airport, I take exception to opinions that are fact-less and slag off the brilliant work we undertook to make that airport the first class facility and Scotland's number one airport. The current GIP management team are all ex BAA staff for heaven sake. You would think by listening to yourself and others that GIP had done wonders when all they've done was to walk in to an airport at the top of its game winning awards right left and centre, riding high on highest passenger numbers in Scotland and to facilities which were among the most modern in Scotland. If you cant make a success from a flying start like that then your an idiot and don't deserve to work at EDI.
GIP then got a bit of good luck as the economy started to recover and the airlines BAA had been speaking to for many a year and who had already committed to flying from EDI once the economy recovered started to see signs of recovery in the market and bobs your uncle EDI gets a whole bunch of new routes. Now this does not mean that GIP didnt play their part attracting those airlines to EDI because they naturally did but dont ever rule out the substantial input BAA had in getting them in the door. Its also important to note that many of the deals airports gain take years to seal and I know on a few occasions it took nearly a decade to persuade an airline to operate from EDI.
So yes have your opinions and yes praise GIP but on BAA and there general management of EDI, I will challenge any nonsense written by individuals, including yourself who clearly know nothing about what BAA actually done and achieved and although BAA didnt always get it right (like GIP and there security recently) you would be misguided to believe that BAA had anything but the best intentions for EDI airport and I can speak with some credibility on that fact and with the evidence of EDI's dominance in Scotland under BAA management a subject of public record then people need to wake up and smell the reality of the outstanding success story which was BAA's control of EDI.
After spending years working with committed people within BAA, many who remain to this day working at EDI for GIP and who helped make EDI a great airport, I take exception to opinions that are fact-less and slag off the brilliant work we undertook to make that airport the first class facility and Scotland's number one airport. The current GIP management team are all ex BAA staff for heaven sake. You would think by listening to yourself and others that GIP had done wonders when all they've done was to walk in to an airport at the top of its game winning awards right left and centre, riding high on highest passenger numbers in Scotland and to facilities which were among the most modern in Scotland. If you cant make a success from a flying start like that then your an idiot and don't deserve to work at EDI.
GIP then got a bit of good luck as the economy started to recover and the airlines BAA had been speaking to for many a year and who had already committed to flying from EDI once the economy recovered started to see signs of recovery in the market and bobs your uncle EDI gets a whole bunch of new routes. Now this does not mean that GIP didnt play their part attracting those airlines to EDI because they naturally did but dont ever rule out the substantial input BAA had in getting them in the door. Its also important to note that many of the deals airports gain take years to seal and I know on a few occasions it took nearly a decade to persuade an airline to operate from EDI.
So yes have your opinions and yes praise GIP but on BAA and there general management of EDI, I will challenge any nonsense written by individuals, including yourself who clearly know nothing about what BAA actually done and achieved and although BAA didnt always get it right (like GIP and there security recently) you would be misguided to believe that BAA had anything but the best intentions for EDI airport and I can speak with some credibility on that fact and with the evidence of EDI's dominance in Scotland under BAA management a subject of public record then people need to wake up and smell the reality of the outstanding success story which was BAA's control of EDI.
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
McTeir396;
As someone with inside knowledge, can you explain why BAA removed the two large wide-body stands on the main apron (6A and 12) and replaced them with stands on the Southeast apron without first strengthening taxiway Lima or Mike to enable these "replacement" stands to be used by higher ACN wide-body aircraft on a regular basis? Can you explain why taxiway Mike was reassessed by GIP as having a much higher PCN inside a week of them taking over and without any work having taking place to strengthen it? It raises the suspicion that BAA were deliberately understating the PCN of taxiway Mike. Can you explain why BAA allowed the centre section of taxiway Alpha to deteriorate to the stage where its usable width had to be limited? GIP remedied this. Can you explain why BAA didn't take the opportunity to upgrade the PCN of runway 06/24 when they resurfaced it? GIP upgraded the PCN of 06/24 shortly after taking ownership. Can you explain why the end sections of Taxiway Alpha were assessed by GIP as having much higher PCNs than BAA had declared? Again, it raises the suspicion that BAA were understating the PCN of these pavements
I don't disagree that BAA made a lot of improvements and presided over a huge increase in passenger numbers but the above facts suggest that BAA's ambition was not directed towards long-haul but instead focused on short to medium range flights. There may be perfectly logical explanations for these decisions. If so I'd be interested to hear them.
As someone with inside knowledge, can you explain why BAA removed the two large wide-body stands on the main apron (6A and 12) and replaced them with stands on the Southeast apron without first strengthening taxiway Lima or Mike to enable these "replacement" stands to be used by higher ACN wide-body aircraft on a regular basis? Can you explain why taxiway Mike was reassessed by GIP as having a much higher PCN inside a week of them taking over and without any work having taking place to strengthen it? It raises the suspicion that BAA were deliberately understating the PCN of taxiway Mike. Can you explain why BAA allowed the centre section of taxiway Alpha to deteriorate to the stage where its usable width had to be limited? GIP remedied this. Can you explain why BAA didn't take the opportunity to upgrade the PCN of runway 06/24 when they resurfaced it? GIP upgraded the PCN of 06/24 shortly after taking ownership. Can you explain why the end sections of Taxiway Alpha were assessed by GIP as having much higher PCNs than BAA had declared? Again, it raises the suspicion that BAA were understating the PCN of these pavements
I don't disagree that BAA made a lot of improvements and presided over a huge increase in passenger numbers but the above facts suggest that BAA's ambition was not directed towards long-haul but instead focused on short to medium range flights. There may be perfectly logical explanations for these decisions. If so I'd be interested to hear them.
Last edited by Porrohman; 23rd Jan 2015 at 20:44.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Livingston and Edinburgh
Age: 86
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(or is it JC in disguise )
I personally know of at least two dozen, younger and richer than me, honoured in this way. I would suggest the unbelievers would be better engaged accepting the fact that EDI has a wider following than "one". But let's keep on track here and enjoy discussing the forum subject, anyone for EDI?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Livingston and Edinburgh
Age: 86
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
outstanding success story which was BAA's control of EDI.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't disagree that BAA made a lot of improvements and presided over a huge increase in passenger numbers but the above facts suggest that BAA's ambition was not directed towards long-haul but instead focused on short to medium range flights.
GIP brought in a new approach and suddenly EDI has had a major expansion in long haul like GLA had in 1990 with facilities not really up to it. What's different is that GLA had a proper rebuild for heavies whereas EDI got the South East pier and more shops built out into the apron. GIP needs to have a good return before too long. At LGW they have spent a gi-normous amount of cash on easyJet's nicest airport, with long haul still flooding out to LHR first chance. Obviously. It will be interesting to see what the ROI is on LGW as well as EDI.
I would suggest the unbelievers would be better engaged accepting the fact that EDI has a wider following than "one".
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
Or just park your B777 in the middle of where the two 737's are.
I'm surprised that the PCNs of Taxiaways Lima and Mike were not increased following the extensive works that were carried out on them a couple of years ago. Is it just a case that the necessary technical assessment has not been carried out yet or is there an underlying structural issue?
When the EARL scheme was being designed, I seem to recall that one of the design challenges was that they were tunneling through shifting sands or something of that ilk. Are shifting sands an issue that affects, and perhaps limits, the PCNs of certain parts of the EDI infrastructure or is there some other explanation for the PCNs of Taxiways Lima and Mike remaining so weak?
One potential solution to the weaknesses of Taxiways Lima and Mike might be to extend the lengths of stands 6-10 as suggested in one of my previous posts.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston, Scotland
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness one echo is almost correct in his evaluation of the situation in the 90/00s.
The debate then was about PIK and its transatlantic monopoly which at the time the airlines in question wanted to move to GLA because it was the busiest airport in Scotland. The PIK question then got addressed and as a result many moved or started to operate from GLA. BAA was then forced very quickly into addressing the shocking lack of LH capability at GLA. Stage 2 the white extension to the front of the building was built quickly followed by stage 2a the west pier. As you correctly say the west pier had the 757 & 767 in mind in its design as Glasgow's major operators at the time Britannia, Airtours and Air 2000 were all either operating or had ordered large numbers of B757s and 767s. So the west pier was ultimately about meeting the demand of those airlines as we had the possibility of 7 B757s based at GLA operating from an old pier designed in the 60's for BAC1.11's and props.
At the time not many airlines were interested in flying from EDI to European or longhaul destinations as Edinburgh was seen as Scotland's number two airport/city basically due to the population of Glasgow which for many of the IT companies and legacy airlines was important.
The on set of the low cost market started to change that perception and all of a sudden cheap weekend breaks made possible by low cost air fares became all the rage and Edinburgh became a huge city break destination. At the same time the Scottish parliament was born and a central government became ever so entrenched in Edinburgh. As a direct result BAA had to act quickly to meet the demand just like it had to do previously at GLA.
BAA was faced with a number of issues and like any company it had finite amount of capital resources to spend and it had to prioritise how to spend that money to meet the immediate demand of its airline customers. PCN weight issue at that time was not seen as an issue because no airline operating into Scotland was talking about operating anything above 767 size which as you know EDI and GLA could handle with ease, therefore and correctly BAA set out on a vast capital expenditure program which delivered the new lounge extension, the SE pier (which was future proof) and I think around 15 stands as well as the new full length taxiways. All of these projects cost millions at met the exact demand of the airlines flying from EDI and increased EDI's capacity to around 10 million per year the exact same as GLA. So its all about spending money where it is required at the time.
Returning to the PCN issue. Even at the time of sale of EDI there was no major airline talking to BAA about operating anything above the B767 with some airlines considering operations with the A330 and the 787 but due to the recession there was no real substance to their position and start dates were expected 2012 onwards or whenever the recession showed signs of improving. It was viewed and correctly that changes could be made to the west side of the facility in the short term to accommodate any surprise introduction of the A330 and B787 type. Interesting this is exactly what GIP done for QR. Once these airlines started to commit then it was our intention to double the width and length of the SE pier and switch the internationals from west to east as demand grew as this option presenting the best options to accommodate LH traffic.
The on set of the Spanish buying BAA made a lot of MP's worried as it was a huge British company responsible for providing vital airport capacity now being owned by a foreign company which in the process of buying BAA became debt ridden and concerns were raised about the amounts that would be spent on infrastructure. Anyway the CC was called in and although huge concerns were raised about BAA management of LHR, LGW and STN the CC were very impressed by the BAA regional airport management teams. Ultimately despite the success of BAA in Scotland the CC felt that although well managed the introduction of competition would ultimately be better for Scottish traveler which is a different argument for a different day.
EDI got sold to GIP. At the same time the country was starting to show "green shoots of recovery" to quote a famous statement at the time and it was clear that growth in the aviation market was starting to appear. BAA's position prior to the sale date was that EDI had really captured the EU market and therefore any growth would ultimately come in the form of longhaul traffic with limited EU upgrades. In the states and in Canada no airline was talking about anything above the 767 (Code D/E) flying into EDI and as expected recent growth in longhaul from EDI was on those types. As a direct result there was no need in the middle of a recession to spend money you were not making on an issue that could be addressed quickly and when required.
There was many rumours at the time that EDI was in the running for EK and the reason it went to GLA was because of the lack of widebody stands but that was all utter nonsense and was factually incorrect as EDI was already capable with ease of handling the A330. EK needed access to the huge mature holiday market of GLA as well as the considerable Pakistani and Indian communities of south Glasgow to make the service work in the earlier days.
So when GIP got the keys to EDI they did so with an economy recovering with many longhaul operators like Untied and Air Canada already interested in flying to EDI but who were waiting for the right time to start. GIP ultimately only had to offer these airlines a deal and they had a number of new routes with NO new approach required and again interestingly NO new infrastructure to accommodate. Please remember that since the introduction of the new transatlantic routes and QR from EDI, GIP have provided no new concrete to accommodate this traffic, they ultimately took the facilities they were left from BAA and changed them about which is exactly what BAA would have done.
Now that traffic has been secured GIP have now introduced a five year project (little/big red box) to accommodate the expected growth in this market which again is exactly what BAA would have done. If you look at the detail of the new extension its clear its about accommodating the exact requirements of QR and EY which again is what any company would do.
Finally, in the cold light of day people need to look at the facts and if you have any aviation background or understanding of airports and indeed if you know your recent history of Scotland's airports the detail above will ring true and you will understand exactly how well BAA left EDI for GIP to take over and hence why previous posts made by CJ needed to be challenged for there lack of factual understanding and knowledge of BAA's time in charge at EDI.
The debate then was about PIK and its transatlantic monopoly which at the time the airlines in question wanted to move to GLA because it was the busiest airport in Scotland. The PIK question then got addressed and as a result many moved or started to operate from GLA. BAA was then forced very quickly into addressing the shocking lack of LH capability at GLA. Stage 2 the white extension to the front of the building was built quickly followed by stage 2a the west pier. As you correctly say the west pier had the 757 & 767 in mind in its design as Glasgow's major operators at the time Britannia, Airtours and Air 2000 were all either operating or had ordered large numbers of B757s and 767s. So the west pier was ultimately about meeting the demand of those airlines as we had the possibility of 7 B757s based at GLA operating from an old pier designed in the 60's for BAC1.11's and props.
At the time not many airlines were interested in flying from EDI to European or longhaul destinations as Edinburgh was seen as Scotland's number two airport/city basically due to the population of Glasgow which for many of the IT companies and legacy airlines was important.
The on set of the low cost market started to change that perception and all of a sudden cheap weekend breaks made possible by low cost air fares became all the rage and Edinburgh became a huge city break destination. At the same time the Scottish parliament was born and a central government became ever so entrenched in Edinburgh. As a direct result BAA had to act quickly to meet the demand just like it had to do previously at GLA.
BAA was faced with a number of issues and like any company it had finite amount of capital resources to spend and it had to prioritise how to spend that money to meet the immediate demand of its airline customers. PCN weight issue at that time was not seen as an issue because no airline operating into Scotland was talking about operating anything above 767 size which as you know EDI and GLA could handle with ease, therefore and correctly BAA set out on a vast capital expenditure program which delivered the new lounge extension, the SE pier (which was future proof) and I think around 15 stands as well as the new full length taxiways. All of these projects cost millions at met the exact demand of the airlines flying from EDI and increased EDI's capacity to around 10 million per year the exact same as GLA. So its all about spending money where it is required at the time.
Returning to the PCN issue. Even at the time of sale of EDI there was no major airline talking to BAA about operating anything above the B767 with some airlines considering operations with the A330 and the 787 but due to the recession there was no real substance to their position and start dates were expected 2012 onwards or whenever the recession showed signs of improving. It was viewed and correctly that changes could be made to the west side of the facility in the short term to accommodate any surprise introduction of the A330 and B787 type. Interesting this is exactly what GIP done for QR. Once these airlines started to commit then it was our intention to double the width and length of the SE pier and switch the internationals from west to east as demand grew as this option presenting the best options to accommodate LH traffic.
The on set of the Spanish buying BAA made a lot of MP's worried as it was a huge British company responsible for providing vital airport capacity now being owned by a foreign company which in the process of buying BAA became debt ridden and concerns were raised about the amounts that would be spent on infrastructure. Anyway the CC was called in and although huge concerns were raised about BAA management of LHR, LGW and STN the CC were very impressed by the BAA regional airport management teams. Ultimately despite the success of BAA in Scotland the CC felt that although well managed the introduction of competition would ultimately be better for Scottish traveler which is a different argument for a different day.
EDI got sold to GIP. At the same time the country was starting to show "green shoots of recovery" to quote a famous statement at the time and it was clear that growth in the aviation market was starting to appear. BAA's position prior to the sale date was that EDI had really captured the EU market and therefore any growth would ultimately come in the form of longhaul traffic with limited EU upgrades. In the states and in Canada no airline was talking about anything above the 767 (Code D/E) flying into EDI and as expected recent growth in longhaul from EDI was on those types. As a direct result there was no need in the middle of a recession to spend money you were not making on an issue that could be addressed quickly and when required.
There was many rumours at the time that EDI was in the running for EK and the reason it went to GLA was because of the lack of widebody stands but that was all utter nonsense and was factually incorrect as EDI was already capable with ease of handling the A330. EK needed access to the huge mature holiday market of GLA as well as the considerable Pakistani and Indian communities of south Glasgow to make the service work in the earlier days.
So when GIP got the keys to EDI they did so with an economy recovering with many longhaul operators like Untied and Air Canada already interested in flying to EDI but who were waiting for the right time to start. GIP ultimately only had to offer these airlines a deal and they had a number of new routes with NO new approach required and again interestingly NO new infrastructure to accommodate. Please remember that since the introduction of the new transatlantic routes and QR from EDI, GIP have provided no new concrete to accommodate this traffic, they ultimately took the facilities they were left from BAA and changed them about which is exactly what BAA would have done.
Now that traffic has been secured GIP have now introduced a five year project (little/big red box) to accommodate the expected growth in this market which again is exactly what BAA would have done. If you look at the detail of the new extension its clear its about accommodating the exact requirements of QR and EY which again is what any company would do.
Finally, in the cold light of day people need to look at the facts and if you have any aviation background or understanding of airports and indeed if you know your recent history of Scotland's airports the detail above will ring true and you will understand exactly how well BAA left EDI for GIP to take over and hence why previous posts made by CJ needed to be challenged for there lack of factual understanding and knowledge of BAA's time in charge at EDI.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Livingston and Edinburgh
Age: 86
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
population of Glasgow which for many of the IT companies and legacy airlines was important.
could be traversed quicker than the 12 kilometres between Edinburgh Airport
and central Edinburgh direct?
The average public transport journey time from Abbotsinch to central Edinburgh
is about 2 hours - 4 hours in terms of a return - in contrast to the sub 30 minutes taken from Edinburgh Airport to central Edinburgh. The more flights becoming available from Edinburgh saw a much larger take-up and the popularity of Edinburgh Airport bludgeoned as a result.
Population has nothing to do with it, why is EDI Scotland's busiest airport
when it's catchment area is far less than Abbotsinchs'?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Population has nothing to do with it, why is EDI Scotland's busiest airport when it's catchment area is far less than Abbotsinchs'?