763 ? seems very specific... Do you have a link to these plans or are you surmising ?

Observers would note 762/3-size is the only aircraft to be catered for @ EDI
on a regular daily basis...

So youre surmising, as I thought. I doubt officially EDI would commit to such.

If that's the case and if QR expand and start EDI flights, how will the ground staff cope using a B777 when they change from a A330 at short notice? (if the rumours are correct I hasten to add)

A lot of ifs and buts but we wont know in the absence of mysteriously missing long haul services/aircraft. Parrohman posted some arguments a few months back which explained some possible infrastructure fears. IMHO I think EDI's
infrastructure was not planned with certain aircraft/services in mind.

The largest stands on the main apron are stands 2, 4 and 10 and the largest aircraft they can accept is a B763. Stand 6A used to be able to accept a B744 (but not a B773 without causing difficulties for aircraft and ground vehicles passing behind as it's slightly too long) but this stand no longer exists. When it did exist it was rarely used as it's use displaced BD from stand 6 and because international passengers could not reach international arrivals via the jetway. There used to be a stand between 11 and 14 which may have been B744 size (can anyone confirm?) but it hasn't existed for many years. There are several stands on the SE apron that can accept widebody aircraft but the taxiways between this apron and taxiway alpha have a PCN of 31F/C/X/T which is around half the strength necessary for a typical widebody carrying long-range fuel and payload. The SE apron can and has been used on an occasional basis for long-range widebody operations but such use involves a very significant overload of the published strength of the pavement. Such use is not permitted on a regular basis and occasionsal use is subject to strict controls and monitoring (CAP 168 refers). Strengthening of these pavements or the construction of a new link between the SE apron and the main apron (between stands 14 and 16) would be necessary before regular long range widebody operations from the SE apron would be permitted. (NB. The new link will not be possible until the drainage system for the aprons is replaced. Does anyone know when this work will be carried out?)

So Joe Currie is correct to say that EDI is not currently designed for long-range operations on a regular basis with anything larger than a B763. In the shorter term, it might be possible to re-instate stand 6A and/or the stand between 11 and 14. I'm not certain, but this may require nothing more than a guidance system and a pot of paint. In the meantime, the largest aircraft that EDI can accept on a regular basis carrying a long-range fuel load and payload is a B763.

As regards sources of data;

• check NATS | AIS - Home for pavement strengths at EDI. (NB. EDI airfield operations have confirmed that the taxiways lima and mike are the same strength as runway 12/30.)
• As regards stand size, check EGPHForum.com • View topic - Edinburgh Stands Although the stand size info is somewhat out of date in various respects, I believe it remains accurate in relation to the maximum size of widebody aircraft that can fit on stands 2, 4, 10 and the widebody stands on the SE apron.

Constraints of the aprons limit the size of wide bodies coming into PH. You can get an A330 on S18 on SE ramp but would normally need pushing out onto 12/30. Most large aircraft that come in (such as troop carriers in the guise of A340's or &74's are parked down on Block33 where there is lots of room and no pushback constraints but bit of a trek from the terminal! Until the airport management decide they want to attract proper long haul carriers and invest in the infrastructure (such as a fuel farm with underground refuelling and proper wide body stands that don't take out half the other stands then guest appearances are all that's going to happen. EK would have been at PH already if some forward vision had been available from BAA several years ago.

And that won't happen until BAA manage to sell EGPF.. The much-needed
forward thinking will hit BAA's pocket hard if new buyers see EDI as a long haul rival.

It beggars belief how much money has been spent on EDI with the result they got. A cut price extension pier and, what was it again, BIGGER SHOPS.

Classic BAA, trying to get a pint into a half pint pot. The Terminal should not have been redeveloped, it should have been flattened. The location of the South East pier should have been a bespoke terminal building designed for the 21st century and post 9-11 world. Once complete the site of the old terminal would have been good for strategic growth, new build stands for heavies etc. Or we could just stetch the old terminal further and build more shops? Shops anyone? Shops it is :)

EDI today is just a human processing factory, we could do these things way better than we do.

Stand 17 can accept aircraft up to B744 size (but possibly not B773ER without impeding other aircraft and ground vehicles). The most significant limitations from a runway/taxiway/stand perspective are the general shortage of stands overnight and during the morning (e.g. use of stand 17 is only possible when stands 16, 18 and 19 are not in use) and the weak pavement strength on taxiways lima, mike and runway 12/30, which are used for taxiing to the SE apron, Block 30 and the south cargo apron. All aircraft that park in these areas constrained by these weak PCNs which are around half the strength necessary for a typical widebody carrying long-range fuel and payload. As mentioned in my previous post, such use is not permitted on a regular basis and occasionsal use is subject to strict controls and monitoring (CAP 168 refers).

I agree. If BAA have real ambition to attract long-haul to EDI;

• why did they get rid of stand 6A;
• why did they get rid of the large widebody stand between 11 and 14;
• why have they not strengthened taxiways lima, mike and at least part of runway 12/30 to allow long-haul widebodies to use the SE Apron and the south cargo apron on a regular basis;
• why did they construct the south cargo apron with very weak substructure (79/R/D/W/T), thus making it unsuitable for long-haul widebody air cargo, even if other constraints are sorted;
• why did they not strengthen runway 06/24 to be more suitable for the new generation of widebodies (A350 and B787) and B773ERs when they resurfaced it a couple of years ago;
• why have they not linked the apron between stands 14 and 16;
• why have they not sorted the corridor arrangements at the international end (for example, an aircraft arriving at stand 4 cannot disembark while an aircraft is boarding at stand 3 and why was there no ability for international passengers arriving at stand 6A to use the jetway to reach International arrivals); and
• why is there such a chronic shortage of parking space, especially during the mornings and overnight?
• etc etc

I suppose the simple answer to these questions is that Ferrovial, who own BAA, have large debts. As a result, their investment decisions at Edinburgh appear to be based on generating short-term returns rather than a long-term strategy. I suppose that's understandable in the circumstances.

NATS data for Edinburgh states; All airports will have parking constraints to some extent but Edinburgh's appear to be much worse than most major airports.

Don't rule out a new satellite terminal in the new Gogar station area of the field. Close enough to be classed for a 'direct' rail link and dedicated to the sort of traffic EDI desperately needs in terms of 'world' services. Firstly EDI needs to secure that much promised Middle-east service. September is getting closer, past promises are getting hollower

This calming of EDI by way of infrastructure goes back pre-Ferrovial days,
starting with the switching of Domestic/International terminals.

So from what's been said so far there will be no expansion for wide bodied aircraft into EDI? (Apart from private flights and one offs)

It seems to me that UK airports want to expand into shopping malls, with very little money spent on the infrastructure where it's most needed. At BHX there is (or there was) a very nice luggage shop outside the departure point. The problem is who wants to buy luggage at the airport? I never saw anyone go in at all.

Certainly not under current BAA central Scotland airport ownership.

As I've said in other posts, in the short term, long-haul widebody stands could perhaps be made available on the main apron by re-instating stand 6A and the stand that used to exist between stands 11 and 14. To do this however, stands 5, 6, 11 and 14 would become unavailable. Aircraft that currently use these stands would need to be found alternative stands and spare stands are at a premium during the morning peak. This makes transatlantic expansion difficult in the short term. An afternoon flight to the Middle East and/or China might be easier to accommodate. With Amazon building a major distribution centre in Dunfermline, there might be considerable demand for air cargo capacity between China and EDI and, according to CAA stats, there are enough passengers travelling between Scotland and Hong Kong each year to support a daily direct flight if they could all be persuaded away from their frequent flyer miles via other hubs.

The PCN limitations of the aprons, taxiways and runways at EDI are a significant limiting factor for long-range operations with the B773ER, even if a suitable stand could be created on the main apron. The A332 and B744ER are better suited to the infrastructure at EDI provided a suitable stand or stands could be created on the main apron and/or provided that taxiways Lima, Mike and part of runway 12/30 are suitably strengthened to provide access to the SE apron.

The A332 is reasonably well suited to EDI from a PCN perspective but the runway length limits payload/range (figures below are for GE engined aircraft and the numbers in brackets are those that would apply if the runway was long enough for a MTOW departure - figures are derived from detailed Airbus data but will vary depending upon how each airline equips their aircraft and other factors);

• Range from EDI with max payload; 2,830nm (4,250nm).
• Range from EDI with 237 pax and no cargo; 5,580nm (7,000nm).
• Range from EDI with 237 pax and 20,000lbs of cargo; 5,020nm (6,100nm).

The B744ER is reasonably well suited to EDI from a PCN perspective but the runway length limits payload/range. Nonetheless a B744ER could operate many routes from EDI with a reasonable payload/range. (figures below are for GE CF6-80C2B5F engined aircraft and the numbers in brackets are those that would apply if the runway was long enough for a MTOW departure - figures are derived from detailed Boeing data but will vary depending upon how each airline equips their aircraft and other factors);

• Range from EDI with max payload; 3,750nm (5,400nm).
• Range from EDI with 416 pax and no cargo; 5,750nm (7,200nm).
• Range from EDI with 416 pax and 40,000lbs of cargo; 4,700nm (6,250nm).

NB. EDI - Hong Kong is a great circle distance of 5,147nm and the prevailing wind is a tail wind so EDI-HKG would be practical with either the A332 or the B744ER with a reasonable payload including some cargo. EDI - Beijing is a great circle distance of 4,297nm and EDI - Shanghai is 4,888nm.

So, it’s not quite correct to say that there can be no long-haul widebody expansion from EDI but, in the short term, afternoon Middle/Far East flights are more feasible for large wide-bodies but only if suitable stands are created on the main apron. In the short term, any transatlantic expansion is likely to be B752 or B763 because of stand availability and, even then, BAA might need to free up stand 10 for that purpose. I don't imagine that BA would be best pleased about that and I don't imagine that BD would be happy if they lose the use of stand 6 if stand 6A is re-instated.

Do BD and BA have any contractual rights to have priority use of stands 6 and 10 or can BAA move BA and BD to other stands at its sole discretion?

Nicely put Porrohman, but I was referring to the terminal facilities, fuel capabilities, taxiways and stands. The runway length is another issue altogether.

Runway length is supposed to be resolved with the future construction of
300metre starter strips at each end of the main runway. First mooted
over half a decade ago but not mentioned since.

Yes, there are lots of shortcomings that I think act together to discourage long-haul operations from EDI. I am just trying to look on the positive side of what might be possible in the short term.

I've added great circle distances to three Chinese destinations to my earlier post which help put the payload / range figures into some perspective. Additions are in red font.

Are they moving the railway at the 24 threshold ? Otherwise you might just squeeze the extension in, but where are you going to put the ILS localiser aerials ?