my immediate thought was another 7000 possible complainants about aircraft noise!

thanks for the orientation. I can see what I assume is Arthur’s Seat but I wasn’t quite sure where the planned development was. I don’t see that as being particularly affected by airport flyover noise but it’s amazing how far the sideline noise, take off and reverse thrust, travels at night.

You can see part of the old GA area bottom left in the illustration below.

If you look at this link, I think the development is basically under the table bottom right - anything taxying to the 300 stands etc will be very close.

https://nats-uk.ead-it.com/cms-nats/...ics/321387.pdf

The Airport was there when they purchase their new residences so they must know what to expect......

Has that ever stopped a 'retrospective NIMBY'?

As Notts says that's never stopped anyone - and of course it really reduces the amount of space available for any airport expansion

This is my main concern. EDI is already a very busy airport for its size and clearly needs expanding both ramp and terminal-wise...yet the people in charge seem happy to sell vast swathes of land and cram it in even more.

I do wish the Highland showground had relocated to this area instead of houses, it would have been ideal, with new roads being built to serve both facilities, as well as a dedicated tram stop for the RHSG, freeing up a huge area for the airport to make use of in the future and creating a modern venue for the Highland Show. Sadly it has not worked out this way and with even more houses now also being built on the other side of Glasgow Road, there is simply nowhere left in the area.

With what appears to be a done deal, subject to all the normal pre contract stuff, GIP, according to various reports will retain day to day control and management of the airport. Blackrock (the owner) will be responsible for any significant expenditure decisions and expansion. Regarding the possible limitations and remaining ground for any terminal expansion, presumably, BR could attempt to negotiate a deal to purchase RHS land. This would open up a large amount of estate to build on. The other option, which I’ve heard a few people from within EDI mention when using the airport each week is adding air bridges to the existing pier. This could create at least four more wide body capable stands. Adding air bridges should be simple. The likelihood is another floor or level to the terminal would be required to channel pax from arriving int flights. The creation of previously reported gate rooms would also be easy to create on the pier.

Does the above mean that GIP are no longer selling EDI as a standalone asset?

This is what I interpret, having read a few reports. I assume Blackrock as the owner in waiting of GIP could if they wanted to sell the asset (EDI) at some point.

What reports are these, for us all to read.

My interpretation is that the team who created GIP are taking over the operation of all Blackrock's infrastructure assets. A lot of Blackrock's money comes from pension funds who are just about the only source of long-term funding and also require a steady income stream to pay pensions when the holders retire which is why so many of them have invested in our regulated industries. This may turn out good for EDI and LGW

https://www.scottishfinancialnews.co...r-ps943bn-deal

A few reports out now on the takeover of GIP by BlackRock.

I assume you meant BlackRock and not Blackstone?

corrected thanks

So how did we all miss this?
Passenger dies after fall at EDI

Lets hope its nothing like GreyBull…

https://www.ch-aviation.com/news/136...ps-in-mid-3q23

Looks like EDI will be seeing the new KLM 321 in October this year.

The posts above were made in July and August 2023 and relate to the services between EDI and the US that operated then (UA to EWR*2/IAD/ORD, DL to ATL/BOS/JFK and VS to MCO). All of these services are on sale for S24 and all start within the next two to four months.

Current schedules show IAD starting six weeks earlier than it did in S23, ATL finishing four weeks later and MCO starting two and a half months earlier. All will operate with aircraft of the same size as operated in S23, except IAD, where the S24 schedule shows 757s but 764s operated some flights in S23 (the 764s were a relatively late addition then, so it’s possible that they could also operate in S24).

Would it be reasonable therefore to conclude now that the two routes over which the doubts quoted above were expressed can indeed be expected to operate in S24 (barring some force majeure type event)? If so, why might they have been given a reprieve?

.... and we've missed other EDI news, not as bad as someone actually dying as a result of transiting via EDI, but a flight cancelled and the captain appearing in court tomorrow morning on an offensive weapons / firearms charge is reasonably notable.

Reports of United captain detained at EDI Security over taser - flight cancelled

We need to up our game and change focus away from speculation on routes or ownership.