Accusing the oppposition of and insecurity is not normally a feature of mature discussion but rather smacks of argument ad hominem.

My main feeling of insecurity arises when I travel on roads north of the central belt such as the A9 and the A82. Both are national disgraces while we squander the thick part of 3 billion on a completely unnecessary tram system and the afore-mentioned bridge.

Sadly, I cannot share your idealistic view of our native politicians. You win.

Scotbill, this is thread drift I know, but I suspect that you drive north from the west side of the country and have not experienced the horrendous traffic jams at the Forth Road Bridge. Give it a try some time and you'll soon agree that a second bridge is very necessary.

As for the Edinburgh's trams, at least we have the comfort of knowing that the party we have elected to govern us at the last two elections were opposed to the trams. They were unfortunately out-voted by an unholy alliance of others.

Back to EDI v GLA. It's nothing to do with government influence and since the end of the time that governments were able to control the fine detail of where and when airlines flew it never has been. Edinburgh's growing dominance is down to two simple facts: a) location nearer to the centre of the country's population and motorway network, i.e. accessibility, and b) demand from incoming originating business - about 40% of total passengers, with a good mix of higher-yield business as well as leisure travellers, as opposed to Glasgow's predominantly outbound originating low-yield leisure business.

I worked for many years at both airports in a managent capacity. I am not biased towards one or the other. I look only at the facts and the reasons behind them.

theredbarron, the Edinburgh based banks are bust now, I own them, you (possibly) own them, hopefully they are a bit more frugal with our money.

And anyway, London manipulates the purse strings these days.

As for 'yield', well my money pointer on the highest yielding flight from a Scottish airport points in the direction of Glasgow, like it or not.

EDI is in the best position as previously mentioned, EDI has the benefit of inbound tourism. It is a well known industy fact that EDI yields are generally higher. GLA however still does fairly well with leisure traffic and as much as EDI try to grow it, GLA still wins hands down on the charter market.

... which from a airport cash generating point of view is equally as important, especially at these quantities.

Totally agree on the airport side, but airlines will prefer EDI yields on non charter routes.

theredbaron

Despite my location, am not actually a Weegie and have even driven across the said bridge. Traffic jams (with which we are familiar in the wild west) were not the reason given for the necessity of a sibling span but rather the fact that the current brig was in grave danger of collapsing into the river.
Interestingly, the initial estimate was £2.4 billion - until it was pointed out that this was the identical amount required to bring the rest of Scotland's roads up to 21st century standards.
Magically, overnight the cost of the new bridge dropped to £1.6 billion. What's a slight miscalculation of £800 million in terms of the history of Scottish quotations? (A £40 million parliament building anyone?)
Anyone care to give me odds on the chances of the new bridge coming in on schedule and on budget?

Try asking the people who are responsible for the Edinburgh tram link :-o

Only because BAA have actively wooed the High Street travel arms
almost exclusively there. Independent owners at EDI will hardly be likely
to allow millions of potential passengers to pass their front door without a fight. The only future obstacle to EDI's advancement on charter and long haul
could be assurances to GLA's new owners that EDI will not break the current status quo on such flights.

Fortunately for EDI, the Scottish parliament has slightly tilted the football pitch by denying GLA a rail link - and the cross-rail connection between Queen St and Central Stations which would permit the good citizens of Perth, Aberdeen, Stirling etc direct rail access to Abbotsinch.

Cynical - moi - never.

EDI was similarly sabotaged, not just on the direct rail link but also on the replacement - due 2016 but questionable given the SNP's record on capital projects - plus of course no plans for Motorway access into EDI. fwiw GARL
wasn't expected to be financially viable by the experts who had opposite views about the viability of EARL. It's all water under the bridge now but one must shake one's head about a decade of incompetence. Going back to BAA, I doubt the selling of GLA will make much difference to the current traffic mix
in light of the obvious promised covenants to GLA's new owners.

What's this now?

Apples and pears really, Air Transat's weekly EDI-YYZ run made so much money it was dropped? Not all GLA and EDI routes are interchangable, anyway EDI doesn't exactly have the room......

Not only YYZ, I suspect Florida falls into the same category. The multiple previous pulled attempts and the token Thomson gesture for next year, proves that these sorts of routes are not necessarily interchangeable.

http://http://www.scotsman.com/news/...ther_afield...

Comment #1 says it all with this:
The new managing director has only just got his bum on his leather seat and already not pushing for long haul flights direct from Edinburgh Isn't it about time the airport owner (current or future) started pushing for 'Full Service' Airline long haul flights from Edinburgh, instead of still thinking of Edinburgh as some sort of dormitory airport feeding into some hub. This has been the case for the last 40 years, where Edinburgh was not allowed to have direct flight on long haul but had to feed into Heathrow.

As for Florida and Toronto, we have to remember it's BAA who called the shots.. EDI flights impact on GLA who were no doubt delighted without
the competition.

Until taxiway strengthening works are carried out, EDI's ability to handle regular long-haul flights with anything bigger than a B763 remain questionable at best. There are currently three stands on the main apron that can accommodate aircraft up to B763 size but I am led to believe that they are currently too narrow for a wingletted B763. Widening of these stands to accommodate a wingletted B763 should in theory be possible but it would reduce the width of the adjacent stands which would probably have a significant impact on stand availability for aircraft that currently use the adjacent stands.

Although there are stands on the SE apron that can accommodate larger aircraft up to B744 size, the taxiway links between there and Taxiway Alpha (the taxiway that runs parallel to the runway 06/24) only have a pavement strength about half of that which would be necessary for regular operations of a typical long-haul widebody at typical long-haul weights.

For those who are technically minded these links (taxiways Lima, Mike and runway 12/30) are PCN 31/F/C/X/T. Although these links are used on an occasional basis for operations where the ACN exceeds this PCN, possibly be a wide margin, each such use requires prior approval and careful inspection afterwards in accordance with CAA CAP168. If any deterioration of the pavement is observed such operations would need to cease pending strengthening works. This PCN limitation is not conducive to attracting any regular long-haul flights that would need to operate from the SE apron i.e. anything bigger than a B763.

There is talk of Taxiway Lima being worked on over the winter and I hope this will bring it up to a suitable PCN and remove the above constraints but we will have to wait and see. I haven’t seen any official announcement about these potential works yet.

Pending such strengthening work, and if demand justifies, it might be possible to reinstate large stands on the main apron i.e. stand 6A and the diagonal stand that used to exist between stands 11 and 14, each of which should be able to accommodate aircraft considerably larger than a B763. Since the main apron has a PCN of 72/R/C/W/T, and because there are no weak links between this apron and Taxiway Alpha, long-haul operations with larger widebody aircraft would in theory be possible if such stands were reinstated. Use of these stands for long-haul would impact airlines that currently use stands in this area, most notably BA and BD.

Until taxiway Lima is strengthened or larger stands are reinstated on the main apron, it would appear that a B763 is the largest long-haul aircraft that can operate from EDI on a regular basis at typical long-haul weights.

For explanations of PCNs and ACNs, check these links to Wikipedia;
Pavement Classification Number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aircraft Classification Number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to the extent you imply, EDI could happily take 2-3 more A310s to YYZ if the market was there to support it without harming GLA. Look at Continental, it used to be a summer daily DC10 at GLA and that now sits at one daily B75W after a peak of 11 weekly B75W. The market wanted EDI and now EDI has twice as many Continental flights as GLA. Delta didn't even try GLA, it was EDI that got two bites at the cherry with ATL and then again with JFK.

There have been no contstraints on EDI having long haul since 1989, some twenty two years ago. I recall Worldways used to operate EDI-PIK-YYZ on the Tristar and the DC8 when I was a kid but since the end of that policy under Cecil Parkinson there has been nothing to stop them if the market's there, frankly they've done very well ! Incidentally the EDI-LHR feeder operation is a fraction of it's previous prestige, a lot of the market uses EDI-LCY on point to point leaving LHR slots for long haul. I don't imagine you're annoyed at those pesky Air France, KLM and Lufthansa services feeding CDG, AMS and FRA?

Some perspective please!

I refer you to the reply by Porrohman, incidentally ,TS - along with other long haul carriers - were keen to use A330 and above aircraft. A very big constraint at EDI?

Am not sure what part Cecil Parkinson played in the matter but it was Air 2000 c1990 which put an end to the ludicrous idea that transatlantic flights could operate only from Prestwick. (Although the silly 7-8 minute lob across Ayrshire was quite fun for the pilots!)

He was the Transport Secretary in the Thatcher Government who when the Traffic Distribution rules were challenged by Air 2000 in 1989 instigated a review of the policy. On completion of the review, following a Court of Session victory for John Boyle and Air 2000, the rules were withdrawn and essentially the lowland airports policy from the 1970s and 80s was torn up. In early 1990 Northwest and Air Canada decided to move to Glasgow and that was the end of Prestwick's status as Scotland's long haul gateway. EDI's first real success came much later with the arrival of Continental on EWR-EDI.

It seems odd that given TS dropped the route on the A330 they'd really want to use the A330, given the capacity on the A330-200 is the same as the A310. (No, REALLY on Transat it actually is !) EDI's major issue is trying to fit a pint into a half pint pot for years with all the focus on shops and the new infrastructure pretty basic in the extreme. The chance to build a new Terminal facility on the location of the South East Pier and have a ten year strategic realignment and planned growth for decades ahead was passed up in favour of bolting a glorified walkway onto the current shopping mall and calling it progress. If Emirates turned up and offered to start flights Apr-2011, are you seriously saying that EDI would say thanks but no thanks? A way WOULD be found by shifting someone less glamorous along a few stands.

SeatGuru Seat Map Air Transat Airbus A310-300 (310)

http://www.airtransat.co.uk/en/gamme...voyageur&id=36

Suggests the seating on A310 and A330 /2/3 are different.