Glasgow back in the runway race

My suspicions have been aroused….my beady eye will be fixed firmly on this thread.

In the meantime, can we please avoid yet another GLA-vs-EDI? I don’t care who started it or who thinks they didn’t – let’s stop it here and now.

I’m seriously considering adopting a policy of awarding a 24hr ban to anyone who starts a GLA-vs-EDI thread or turns an otherwise “innocent” thread into one.

The latter would have my vote. Is there any logical reason why anyone should turn this into a GLA v EDI thread? I posted the link for general discussion – in a forum where it is on topic – quite why it suddenly turns into a matter for discussion by moderators is a sad reflection on the narrow-mindedness of some contributors in Central Scotland.

Instead of trying to exploit the EDI v GLA issue – shouldn’t all of us in Central Scotland be grateful of the fact that the majority of us are no more than 1 1/2 hours at most from EDI, PIK or GLA and the myriad of flights now available from these airports? The fact that BAA is hedging it’s bets re future expansion is even better for all of us and the fact that PIK’s owners are finally investing in the airport infrastruture is also good news.

We have never had it so good and the article I posted suggests to me that if it ever comes about BAA will ensure that the location of an extra runway will be decided by them and not politicians.

Simple as that – and who can blame them.

I should have said it’s best for the politicians to “slug” it out. 😉

To be fair Allen – it is for BAA to sort out – politicians have nothing to do with it. BAA clearly have a better insight into future developments at THEIR airports than any MSP’s will have. BAA are carrying a sterling job of improving the profitabilty of ALL airports in their Scottish portfolio – the `leak` would appear to suggest they are ensuring outside and polictical influences will not have any bearing on their future plans. Some MSP’s seem to be under the impression Scottish aviation is nationalised and under their control- thankfully this is very far from the truth.

Scottish commercial aviation is thriving and I trust BAA to ensure that is the case for many years to come.

And for what it is worth – neither EDI or GLA will have – or need – a second runway. Off-peak there simply isn’t the need for it and in OUR lifetime that situation is unlikely to change.

I don’t get it why here in Scotland the media and Scottish Executive keep papping on about a 2nd runway at either GLA or EDI. The fact of the matter is neither of these airports need a 2nd runway. Look at LHR 60+m passengers a year from 2 runways, put Scotland’s 4 main airports together (GLA-EDI-PIK-ABZ) and you still don’t get anywhere near 60m passengers. LGW does just fine with 1 runway and it carries more passengers then GLA and EDI combined. Screw a 2nd runway and put the money into the terminal buildings that need expanded and the apron areas.

Couldn’y agree more.

The portacabin at GLA has to go and a proper terminal put in its place with proper access, instead of a sheltered walkway. Also, better signage outside the airport for all the parking etc. When looking for long stay, one has to guess which way to turn at a particular T junction.

Also, EDIs terminal could certainly benefit from some expansion.

Manchester’s 2nd runway (24L/06R) is only in use at peak periods, and Ringway is a considerably busier airport than either GLA or EDI.

You only have to see the state of the taxiways and terminals at Ringway to start wondering whether at least some of the money spent on the 2nd runway could have been put to better use, so I’m inclined to agree with EK to an extent.

Last Tue I spent 15 mins at the 23 hold , 7th in line for take off during which time there were 4 landings and this was at 0915 hrs , hardly the busiest time of the day for Glasgow. There is little doubt that with the predicted growth in air travel that a 2nd runway will be needed in the years to come!

Yes but at the moment that’s just peak time congestion, lot’s can be done to alleivate that, just the same as can be done on the roads. Everyone not starting work at the same time is a good example.

In years to come perhaps a 2nd runway, but at the moment there’s absolutley no need.

I don’t get it why here in Scotland the media and Scottish Executive keep papping on about a 2nd runway at either GLA or EDI.

Last Tue I spent 15 mins at the 23 hold , 7th in line for take off during which time there were 4 landings and this was at 0915 hrs , hardly the busiest time of the day for Glasgow. There is little doubt that with the predicted growth in air travel that a 2nd runway will be needed in the years to come!

I don’t get it why here in Scotland the media and Scottish Executive keep papping on about a 2nd runway at either GLA or EDI. The fact of the matter is neither of these airports need a 2nd runway. Look at LHR 60+m passengers a year from 2 runways, put Scotland’s 4 main airports together (GLA-EDI-PIK-ABZ) and you still don’t get anywhere near 60m passengers. LGW does just fine with 1 runway and it carries more passengers then GLA and EDI combined. Screw a 2nd runway and put the money into the terminal buildings that need expanded and the apron areas.

I’m seriously considering adopting a policy of awarding a 24hr ban to anyone who starts a GLA-vs-EDI thread or turns an otherwise “innocent” thread into one.

Sounds familiar, wish I’d had those banning powers when I was mod. :diablo:

What is wrong with you? It’s nothing to do with GLAvEDI , this is a topical news story where the owners of the two airports are telling the Govt that their initial decision looks like being a wrong one! Build a bridge and get over it! PLEASE!

Agreed.

What is wrong with you? It’s nothing to do with GLAvEDI , this is a topical news story where the owners of the two airports are telling the Govt that their initial decision looks like being a wrong one! Build a bridge and get over it! PLEASE!

I suggest you re-read my posts and re-evaluate.

What I mean is, this news is going to be a catalyst to start more EDIvGLA flame wars on fora all over the place.

My suspicions have been aroused….my beady eye will be fixed firmly on this thread.

In the meantime, can we please avoid yet another GLA-vs-EDI? I don’t care who started it or who thinks they didn’t – let’s stop it here and now.

I’m seriously considering adopting a policy of awarding a 24hr ban to anyone who starts a GLA-vs-EDI thread or turns an otherwise “innocent” thread into one.

hear we go again :rolleyes:

ding ding, round 2

What is wrong with you? It’s nothing to do with GLAvEDI , this is a topical news story where the owners of the two airports are telling the Govt that their initial decision looks like being a wrong one! Build a bridge and get over it! PLEASE!

I should have said it’s best for the politicians to “slug” it out. 😉

There we go :diablo:

Agree with all of that apart from “it’s one that’s best left to the politicians to sort out” I wouldnt leave anything for them to sort out.

I should have said it’s best for the politicians to “slug” it out. 😉

Neither airport needs a 2nd runway IMHO. As I’ve mentioned in other threads what is required, especially at GLA is a longer runway capabling of handling fully laden heavies.

On top of that, further apron infrastructure improvement and investment needs to be carried out at both airports before either even thinks about handling the levels of traffic that will necessitate a 2nd runway.

As for the politics of EDI’s alleged preferred status for a 2nd runway, well we’ve been down this road before many times and it’s one that’s best left to the politicians to sort out.

Agree with all of that apart from “it’s one that’s best left to the politicians to sort out” I wouldnt leavy anything for them to sort out.

Well so far i cant see any reason why this thread is going to go down that road and i hope it dosent.

no no, not this thread.

The war in general of many a forum.

Neither airport needs a 2nd runway IMHO. As I’ve mentioned in other threads what is required, especially at GLA is a longer runway capabling of handling fully laden heavies.

On top of that, further apron infrastructure improvement and investment needs to be carried out at both airports before either even thinks about handling the levels of traffic that will necessitate a 2nd runway.

As for the politics of EDI’s alleged preferred status for a 2nd runway, well we’ve been down this road before many times and it’s one that’s best left to the politicians to sort out.

Well so far i cant see any reason why this thread is going to go down that road and i hope it dosent.

??

The Great GLAvEDI war ya know?

GLA is better and should get the 2nd runway
EDI is better and should get the 2nd runway

yadda yadda

hear we go again :rolleyes:

ding ding, round 2

??