Edinburgh-4
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DOH was 16230 passengers in October and continues daily thru winter.
No idea what relevance the question is. DOH is still daily.
People obsessed about aircraft size.
I'm just grateful EDI continues with new routes and new airlines and choice.
I remember the old days where the only international routes were AMS, DUB and Maybe CDG.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember the old,old days when the international scheduled routes were zero (maybe Dublin, nothing else). The highlight (summer only) was the Sterling Caravelle student charter on a Wednesday.
Qatar carried 16230 in October. Used 788 and 359’s. A rough calc gives a LF of around 98%. Impressive stats again.
In what context are you asking this?
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Edin
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe in this context? If impressive load factor figures are being mentioned the size of aircraft is relevant, especially if it is smaller than originally scheduled. Anyway as we all know load factors don't tell you much. As the old saying goes, any fool can fill an aircraft, it's filling it and making money that is the difficult bit.
Don't make the mistake of thinking airlines are loyal to airports. Qatar had an enormous wide body fleet that flew because of the pressing need to keep the global supply chain going, that's not something the US majors did with B757/B767s. United did keep their B77Ws and B787s flying on cargo only but only a smaller fleet.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe in this context? If impressive load factor figures are being mentioned the size of aircraft is relevant, especially if it is smaller than originally scheduled. Anyway as we all know load factors don't tell you much. As the old saying goes, any fool can fill an aircraft, it's filling it and making money that is the difficult bit.
Has Edinburgh as an airport been successful under GIP yes; we have seen a massive growth of services - many from/to Europe in particular due in no small part to the EU open sky policies ( now lost) and indeed strong work by the Scottish administration and Visit Scotland aboard to encourage inbound travellers .
Some of the routes such as Rotterdam, Paris Orly and the Scandinavian/Nordic/ Faroese routes are definitely inbound biased.
Has GIP and Visit Scotland also been successful in the US; recently certainly however caveat the previous referred factors in 2022 particularly.
Through there have been disappointments notably via the UAE and beyond - Both carriers are currently OUT of the market, so is that an indication that volumes ( out bound point of sale ) going East and further aren’t as strong as some believe ?
Hainan’s short Chinese service didn’t deliver the expectations of CAISSA even before COVID struck.
I am ( personal opinion) less than convinced that Westjet will be able to make Calgary work as a hub; several flights a week from Edinburgh ( on a Dreamliner no less) seems exceptionally risky both with adequate range of connectivity and ability for a balanced revenue bundle. I think they are making a grave mistake but we shall see in 18 months or sooner ( not just on the Edinburgh route )
Toronto performs okay in high season through the clientele have morphed and changed over the years - long gone VFR mothers and daughters and several 747s from Ayr and Manchester each day.
Whilst I don’t entirely know I suspect GIP are wanting their money out because the airport has peaked in the growth curve at least in the short to mid term and the required investment in the existing infrastructure and return/ recovery has the potential to damage the parent gearing levels.
Considered opportunity risk “may” well be elsewhere for them.
Last edited by Rutan16; 17th Dec 2022 at 18:28.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LV
Posts: 2,296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're having to ask that, we are in trouble.
If you don’t get higher loads on a smaller than previously operated schedule then something is a miss. Was the same with NCLs EK service when overall weekly capacity was reduced. Its not rocket science as others have shown.
But everone loves an apparent personal vendetta
If you don’t get higher loads on a smaller than previously operated schedule then something is a miss. Was the same with NCLs EK service when overall weekly capacity was reduced. Its not rocket science as others have shown.
But everone loves an apparent personal vendetta
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're having to ask that, we are in trouble.
If you don’t get higher loads on a smaller than previously operated schedule then something is a miss. Was the same with NCLs EK service when overall weekly capacity was reduced. Its not rocket science as others have shown.
But everone loves an apparent personal vendetta
If you don’t get higher loads on a smaller than previously operated schedule then something is a miss. Was the same with NCLs EK service when overall weekly capacity was reduced. Its not rocket science as others have shown.
But everone loves an apparent personal vendetta
All you stated wasn't DOH an A350.
Yes they've changed to a B787 and managed to fill it and this is somehow a failure here.
GIP have owned Edinburgh for over 10 years, so the quick buy quick sale doesn't stand up.
Yes the old business saying turnover (Pax numbers) is vanity profit is sanity.
I used to work in revenue management for a large UK airline.
Just seems lots of Edinburgh downers in here who glee at any reduction and find flaw with any positive.
I've noticed this particular trend with your posts in particular and your choice of vocabulary in some posts. (For example an increase in Air France flights to 3 a week is seen as a negative).
It's not EDI fault that other UK airports are not able to attract or keep their routes. Complain to them.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Through certainly a blight for much of the day .
As for Sterling yes remember them doing a few flights each summer and them going onto Dublin as well .
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Note at all, this thread goes of at many different tangents.
All you stated wasn't DOH an A350.
Yes they've changed to a B787 and managed to fill it and this is somehow a failure here.
GIP have owned Edinburgh for over 10 years, so the quick buy quick sale doesn't stand up.
Yes the old business saying turnover (Pax numbers) is vanity profit is sanity.
I used to work in revenue management for a large UK airline.
Just seems lots of Edinburgh downers in here who glee at any reduction and find flaw with any positive.
I've noticed this particular trend with your posts in particular and your choice of vocabulary in some posts. (For example an increase in Air France flights to 3 a week is seen as a negative).
It's not EDI fault that other UK airports are not able to attract or keep their routes. Complain to them.
All you stated wasn't DOH an A350.
Yes they've changed to a B787 and managed to fill it and this is somehow a failure here.
GIP have owned Edinburgh for over 10 years, so the quick buy quick sale doesn't stand up.
Yes the old business saying turnover (Pax numbers) is vanity profit is sanity.
I used to work in revenue management for a large UK airline.
Just seems lots of Edinburgh downers in here who glee at any reduction and find flaw with any positive.
I've noticed this particular trend with your posts in particular and your choice of vocabulary in some posts. (For example an increase in Air France flights to 3 a week is seen as a negative).
It's not EDI fault that other UK airports are not able to attract or keep their routes. Complain to them.
Prior evidence is that they have a policy of selling most of their assets to realise profits after a given period of time ( gains achieved and the very essence of the business model) . They are very adept in the art of sweating assets, often buy in after someone else has done the prior development and at the start of a cycle ( Also a key to the business model and practices)
However when real investments ( not terminal cosmetics such as South terminal Gatwick) loom high, they are known to offload rather quickly.
Right now that’s Turnhouse in a nutshell growth achieved ( mid term growth numbers uncertain) massive levels of real construction and buildings needed - hundreds of millions if not billions of pounds with a recovery period stretching into the mid and long term .
Perfect time to recover your profit I’d suggest.
Allow the day to day operator to offer a range of discounts and varnish the table ready for someone else to take on the risk opportunity.
Qatar have 22 A359s grounded and the remaining twelve are in their premier Q seat format and needed for the US in the main . Pure and simple that’s why they have largely disappeared .
Not a criticism just a fact .
Last edited by Rutan16; 18th Dec 2022 at 09:03.
Which comes back to my point, that if Scortand is to have a gateway to the world for the 21st century, it needs a new build fit for purpose terminal at EDI. What we have now is an impressive volume of traffic through a 1977 terminal built for Tridents and Viscounts with some major bolt ons. Anyone who flew throught LHR terminals pre 2008 knows where that ends up. And that sort of investment usually means taxpayer funded and the hamster wheel turns once more.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which comes back to my point, that if Scortand is to have a gateway to the world for the 21st century, it needs a new build fit for purpose terminal at EDI. What we have now is an impressive volume of traffic through a 1977 terminal built for Tridents and Viscounts with some major bolt ons. Anyone who flew throught LHR terminals pre 2008 knows where that ends up. And that sort of investment usually means taxpayer funded and the hamster wheel turns once more.
Yet I just don’t think (and based on their prior evidence elsewhere) GIP are the company to provide the necessary funds , it will be someone else or regrettable it will be Holyrood and that’s not a particularly good thing ( even for an old socialist)
GIP will quite rightly want their ROI and move on elsewhere, no complaint from me on that. The actual tricky bit is that to take the business to the next phase, fit for the next 30 years, they need to have space to grow and the current design has natural limitations and pain points. Look at MAN, the current expansion is long overdue and painfully piecemeal. I don't see EDI making a better job on a much lower traffic base. Private sector just won't fund it given the ROI. Nothing against EDI or MAN, just my thoughts on the constraints they operate under.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GIP will quite rightly want their ROI and move on elsewhere, no complaint from me on that. The actual tricky bit is that to take the business to the next phase, fit for the next 30 years, they need to have space to grow and the current design has natural limitations and pain points. Look at MAN, the current expansion is long overdue and painfully piecemeal. I don't see EDI making a better job on a much lower traffic base. Private sector just won't fund it given the ROI. Nothing against EDI or MAN, just my thoughts on the constraints they operate under.