GLA – Newark – 13,175 pax, 90% Load Factor, averaging 192 pax per flight.
GLA – Chicago-O’Hare – 11,935 pax, 91% Load Factor, averaging 192 pax per
flight.
GLA – Philadelphia -10,750 pax, 87% Load Factor, averaging 173 pax per
flight.
GLA- Dubai – 14,168 pax, 82% Load Factor, averaginf 228 pax per flight.
GLA – Toronto – 27,884 pax, 900 pax per day passing through Glasgow
International to/from Toronto.
GLA-SFB JULY 2004 JULY 2003 %Change
26527 12860 106
By: by738 - 24th August 2004 at 22:50
The figures quoted by GLAsgow are wrong…
Based on 764 x 285 seats, the July total passenger count at GLA resolved to an average load factor of 74.56%
I phoned Contintental when enquiring about flights next week and was advised the 764’s that operate GLA-EWR have 235 seats
No room for guess work and presumptive quick online searches in this forum
thank you.
By: Skymonster - 24th August 2004 at 22:32
Percentages are always misleading when it comes to passenger growth. Grot Airways flew 1000 passenger from Here to There last June and 1400 this June but can only claim 40% growth over the same period.
What have Grot Airways got to do with Edinburgh or Glasgow – I thought Grot Airways were the ones with the harp on the tail who operate out of Prestwick!!! 😀
Andy
By: Bmused55 - 24th August 2004 at 21:59
We’ve had our words; let’s do what we agreed to, ignore each other!
Also, you know fine well that this post is gaining momentum and the latter part is very much EDI Vs GLA!
Enough said!
GLASgow’s ludicrous comments may have approached that. But he seems to have calmed down.
By: Bmused55 - 24th August 2004 at 21:47
No-one, trying to return a bit of sanity back to this post.
Yet again, this is turning into and EDI vs GLA bash. Yet again, it’s the same people that are in the middle of it.
I don’t see a bash. I see a presentation of figures and a discussion about them with a few opinions and questions thrown in. Also, a tangent skewing off about the 767 seating.
Nothing unduely said here, nothing to warrant your uber-censor stance.
By: Bmused55 - 24th August 2004 at 21:38
Come on guys, this is getting ridiculous.
GLAsgow, a bit of thought please when posting. Ren Frew has alreayd given warnings against this sort of posting.
Others, stop encouraging this sort of behaviour. Your as much a part of problem, as GLAsgow is!
Who died and made you overlord?
Theres nothing going on here but presentation of facts, opinions and a bit of banter
By: Bmused55 - 24th August 2004 at 21:34
The question being, “Will the real Continental 764 stand-up”?
Already has, its called GLA
we’re talking about the configuration of the 767, not an airport.
By: GLAsgow - 24th August 2004 at 21:29
The question being, “Will the real Continental 764 stand-up”?
Already has, its called GLA
By: Bmused55 - 24th August 2004 at 21:29
It already has, Joe. It’s the one on the Continental website that I linked to and then included in a later post.
The others are “route-specific” configurations on semi-dedicated aircraft used on Pacific routes.
As I said earlier, Continental used to do the same thing with the DC10s. Luckily they were all passed through Ringway for servicing by FLS. 😀
I take it you work or worked for FLS?
By: Grey Area - 24th August 2004 at 21:27
The question being, “Will the real Continental 764 stand-up”?
It already has, Joe. It’s the one on the Continental website that I linked to and then included in a later post.
The others are “route-specific” configurations on semi-dedicated aircraft used on Pacific routes.
As I said earlier, Continental used to do the same thing with the DC10s. Luckily they all passed through Ringway for servicing by FLS. 😀
By: Bmused55 - 24th August 2004 at 21:26
EDI will get a CO 764 when GLA has 2 daily 777s
grasping at straws now mate.
That is a rather ridiculous thing to say.
By: Silver Snapper - 24th August 2004 at 21:16
EDI will get a CO 764 when GLA has 2 daily 777s
How old are you?
By: GLAsgow - 24th August 2004 at 21:15
EDI will get a CO 764 when GLA has 2 daily 777s
By: Silver Snapper - 24th August 2004 at 21:15
Why do all EDI spotter they to turn EVERYTHING into a GLA Vs EDI match? Its just pathetic realy.
Here we go again..GLAsgow is once again ‘locking’ a thread?
By: Silver Snapper - 24th August 2004 at 21:13
The seatguru map referred to the “Hawaii” configuration.
Airlines sometimes configure the same type of aircraft with different seats, depending on the destination. BA for instance, always used to have more seats in their “Miami” 744’s than the rest of the fleet.
The question being, “Will the real Continental 764 stand-up”? :rolleyes:
By: Silver Snapper - 24th August 2004 at 21:08
Edi is expanding double the rate!
July marked the 72nd (6 years) consecutive month in which annual passenger growth at EDI exceeded that of it’s nearest rival. To the best of my knowledge, July marked the first month in which a Scottish civil airport (EDI) jumped the 10,000 atm hurdle and the first 12-month period in which a Scottish airport (EDI) jumped the 110,000 atm hurdle. EDI is also drawing further ahead as Scotland’s principal airport for the carriage of goods (freight / mail). 😉 😉
By: Bmused55 - 24th August 2004 at 20:38
The seatguru map referred to the “Hawaii” configuration.
Airlines sometimes configure the same type of aircraft with different seats, depending on the destination. BA for instance, always used to have more seats in their “Miami” 744’s than the rest of the fleet.
Very true.
Another example: COA’s International 757s have less seating than their Domestics. The reason being obvious
By: mongu - 24th August 2004 at 20:36
The seatguru map referred to the “Hawaii” configuration.
Airlines sometimes configure the same type of aircraft with different seats, depending on the destination. BA for instance, always used to have more seats in their “Miami” 744’s than the rest of the fleet.
By: Bmused55 - 24th August 2004 at 20:26
Percentages are always misleading when it comes to passenger growth.
For example:
Blagways flew 100 passengers from Here to There last June, and flew 200 this June, they can rightly claim to have experienced 100% growth.
However, Grot Airways flew 1000 passenger from Here to There last June and 1400 this June but can only claim 40% growth over the same period.
Even though Grot Airways’ growth alone was twice Blagways’ total loading over the same period, in sheer percentage terms Blagways appears to be the far more successful of the two.
Just goes to show what they say about lies, damned lies and statistics. 😀
Percentages also have their uses. These stats are created on averages afaik.
For general info like this thread… they’ll suffice.
By: Grey Area - 24th August 2004 at 20:22
Percentages are always misleading when it comes to passenger growth.
For example:
Blagways flew 100 passengers from Here to There last June, and flew 200 this June, they can rightly claim to have experienced 100% growth.
However, Grot Airways flew 1000 passenger from Here to There last June and 1400 this June but can only claim 40% growth over the same period.
Even though Grot Airways’ growth alone was twice Blagways’ total loading over the same period, in sheer percentage terms Blagways appears to be the far more successful of the two.
Just goes to show what they say about lies, damned lies and statistics. 😀
By: Bmused55 - 24th August 2004 at 20:20
I think we should wait for the year total figures.
I have a sneaky feeling Prestwick might put all the airports to shame.
Sign In
August 24, 2004 at 4:34 pm