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

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...

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.

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...

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, 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?

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?

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!':ok:

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.

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.:sad:

Nigel

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

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.

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 said;
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. I’m quite certain that Boeing’s 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. EDI’s 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;
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 EDI’s but the stronger sub-grade at GLA (denoted by the letter B) makes a significant difference. The ACN of a 773ER on GLA’s 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;
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).

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 ! :)

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.

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.

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.

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...

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,

I would be interested in seeing the up to date PAX stats on routes that are served from both EDI and GLA just to compare them. Do you have that data to hand as opposed to me having to trawl through the CAA stats? Cheers

Not many routes that directly compete and virtually none on a like for like representation in terms of frequency etc ( ie EWR EDI is twice daily, GLA once etc). Rough figures from CAA provisional Sept figures 2011

Route Edinburgh/ Glasgow Int /Glasgow PIK
Paphos 4500 7147
Berlin 3900 7400
Corfu 2800 5800
Faro 10300 12300 9800
Ibiza 3000 10400 4100
Alicante 12800 21000 10800
Malaga 14900 13300 9500
Reus 800 3000 3600
Palma 24000 30500 13000
Arrecife 4300 8700 4300
Tenerife 9000 18000 10400
Antalya 1700 10400
Dalaman 3700 24500
Bourgas 1200 5300
Copenhagen 3000 1800
Nice 4552 2000
Paris CDG 26500 11000 3900
Cork 3300 2200
Dublin 34000 12100 9400
Venice 3300 700
Malta 4400 1900 2800
Amsterdam 53000 28000
Fuertevent 2400 1800 2900
Las palmas 4500 3600 4400
Newark 17500 9500

Thanks CC. These figures do show that the Glasgow Airports have a real lead in PAX numbers in relation to the 'bucket and spade' flights. It would be interesting to compare the UK Domestic Market between EDI and GLA

Don't get TOO excited, most examples are High Street charters , can we have SCHEDULED International? And an explanation why EDI has more SCHEDULED International pax than both GLA/PIK combined?

The only person getting excited seems to be you ! Capitalisation is very rarely called for.
Lets just change the goal posts to suit and only stick to scheduled passengers , why would we do that? does none of the other throughput count ? The duplicated flights is what was asked for. And of course the scheduled component of these duplicated routes will be included in these totals.

With the figures shown (and most of he PIK figures are scheduled) - the totals for GLA and PIK on the duplicated routes are very similar if not outweighed in some cases. EDI total pax are higher overall because there are huge number of exclusive scheduled routes from there. If you're concerned about fairness- how fair is that ?

If you can think of any other directly duplicated routes between GLA and EDI, be it scheduled or otherwise- feel free to show their trends....

Let's ask the millions of pax inconvenienced annually to surface-journey
the M8, about fairness.. Isn't fairness the reason why BAA were required
to sell either airport in the first place?

Gents, the argument about fairness is pointless because fairness doesn't enter into it. I mean, is it fair, that despite living 2 minutes from an international airport with a 9800ft runway (PIK) I have to travel to GLA 2-3 X a week (and on occasion to EDI) to fly around the UK and Europe? No, iit is not but its about business and business whether we like it or not will dictate where we can fly from and to. Were damn lucky to have three airports in an 80 mile corridor west to east.

Next year we will potentially have 3 competing airports with 3 different owners (or will we?) and this has to be good for competition and hopefully will result in more services, choice and lower fares for people in central Scotland. At the moment there is no competition on some routes (BA GLA - LHR and BE GLA - BHX are just two) and prices have rocketed on these very popular routes. I know because I have to pay for them!

The most dynamic. entrepreunerial and effective airport management teams will win at the end of the day provided they are backed up by their owners. Interesting times ahead for GLA, PIK and EDI. Hopefully they'll be no casualties.

Joe, I think you're missing the key points that 1/ the Glasgow area has a higher holidaying population than Edinburgh so routes such as Virgin to Orlando and Emirates to Dubai (as well as the European bucket and spade destinations) will always work better from GLA than EDI and 2/ the Glasgow area has a much higher ethnic population than Edinburgh so Emirates to Asia (via Dubai) will always work better from GLA and 3/ Edinburgh is seen as an inbound tourist destination (it is the Scottish capital) so routes attracting inbound as well as outbound traffic (European cities, CO New York service etc) will work better from EDI than GLA and, finally, 4/ that Edinburgh has become the Scottish business capital so European business routes will work better from EDI. I get the distinct impression that no one contributing to this thread has ever worked in planning or commercial for an actual airline because frankly, if they had, they'd recognise that this is all from page one of "airline planning for dummies".

Some good points WW and I think some of these points have actually come out in some previous comments although not as succinctly as you put it. And yes I am not in airline planning or commercial - just a frequent business traveller so the facts from those 'in the know' and without 'airport bias' are always welcome. Thanks.:ok:

That sounds fair.. :-)

Soon, in Scotland we'll have EDI, PIK & GLA all competing with each other, which can only be good.

At EDI, the new owner is unlikely to tolerate the way 'things are done' there for long. This can only be good! The place has needed a shake up for years, and that's putting it mildly.

There is also the possibility that APD will become a devolved issue. If this happens, Mr Salmond wont waste any time in slashing (or eliminating) this levy. This would really encourage direct flights at all three central belt airfields.

So, it could be quite an interesting next few years.:ok:

Sounds like EDI is a prime airport for direct Worldwide services..strange how most long haul destinations are mysteriously missing.

A more than adequate explanation for your "mystery".

Joe is to EDI what David Reid was to PIK, you can't argue with that certainty. Incidentally GLA-MAN is back to being a monopoly too since BD pulled the plug, GLA-LCY always has been. The greater frequency, choice and variety lies with EDI on legacy European routes. Joe makes some good points whuch were arguably true in the 80s and 90s but the picture he paints is one of a world long gone.

You might want to do a web search on the main protagonist here and Skyscraper.

Indeed, but we might also equally raise concerns about a "first poster" who seems to know a lot about proceedings....:rolleyes:

ACN / PCN values
 

I think that a heavy health warning needs to be placed on the ACN / PCN classification system. For a start, it can be based on an awful lot of assumptions, particularly about the strength of the underlying sub-grade. These assumptions can significantly chance the declared PCN value declared by airport operators.

Secondly, if anyone thinks that airlines pay any great heed to the declared PCN value when they are planning to start a new or upgraded service to a particular airport are sadly delusional. What they want to know is can the service be profitable. In most cases - the new Code F aircraft apart - they expect that the airfield infrastructure should be capable of supporting their operation. If it ain't, then frankly most find somewhere else to fly to. But in my experience, the decalred PCN v the PCN of the aircraft they are operating generally doesn't even come anywhere on their rader.