Edinburgh: New Route Development & Rumours
- Thread starter backtrack
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Discussions relating to Edinburgh Airport
It would be great to have pre clearance at EDI. Business in Scotland appear to support the idea. Thankfully, for the airport, Border control issues is a reserved matter and would need the support of the UK Gov for any application and not the SNP/Green coalition who are no supporter of the aviation sector. The greens in particular want to ban certain flights from Scotland. The costs and logistics to operate PC would be huge. It would require a major re-vamp of an area of the terminal. Effectively, this would be a part of the US. Where would this be located in the terminal? Would a further expansion be required? EDI, in my opinion, would also need to further boost its TATL portfolio with more year round offerings. A daily Newark and 5 x weekly DL to JFK in the middle of winter surely isn’t enough to justify the expenditure?
gulftraveller
Well-Known Member
But it’s pointless. EDI is largely reliant on US originating tourists for its transatlantic passengers. They do not need pre clearance.
Surely LGW or MAN would be better locations, both normally handling more passengers to US than EDI, though I read that MAN did not want it because of the expense involved. I also doubt US Immigration are that keen on expanding the current pre-clearance portfolio.
Surely LGW or MAN would be better locations, both normally handling more passengers to US than EDI, though I read that MAN did not want it because of the expense involved. I also doubt US Immigration are that keen on expanding the current pre-clearance portfolio.
diamond geezer
Active Member
No it isn't. US passport holders still have to clear US immigration and customs on arrival back in the US. Having pre-clearance reduces the minimum connection time at the US hub, so reduces the risk of connecting passengers missing their onward flight, with a consequent benefit to the airline and the passenger. The airlines are charged a lower per-passenger handling fee at the US hub since the passengers are effectively domestic passengers and don't need to use the customs and immigration facility. Finally, the US authorities prefer it because passengers who are denied entry are kept on foreign soil and don't have to be processed and deported once they arrive on US soil as is currently the case. So it's far from pointless.
gulftraveller
Well-Known Member
That is true but it is not the main role of pre-clearance which is aimed at keeping unwelcome foreigners (not US passport holders) away from US soil.
Most airports which have it have a large number of originating and transferring passengers (SNN is an exception). EDI certainly does not have the latter and it is hard to see which airline would build spoke connectivity.
The cost to the airport would be huge in building the facility in an airport which is barely able to cope with current passenger numbers. As for the reduced costs at the US end, it is more than made up for in costs at the originating airport. If a much larger airport such as MAN questions the cost effectiveness, I am sure that there are also better ways for Mr.Dewar to invest his money.
Most airports which have it have a large number of originating and transferring passengers (SNN is an exception). EDI certainly does not have the latter and it is hard to see which airline would build spoke connectivity.
The cost to the airport would be huge in building the facility in an airport which is barely able to cope with current passenger numbers. As for the reduced costs at the US end, it is more than made up for in costs at the originating airport. If a much larger airport such as MAN questions the cost effectiveness, I am sure that there are also better ways for Mr.Dewar to invest his money.
An airport with pre-clearance can add how many millions to their value? Perhaps this is a very cute move by EDI owners.
diamond geezer
Active Member
The airport have costed it at £5m (see 2.1 below) They obviously think the business case makes sense.
Coathanger16
Well-Known Member
As you say, US passport holders still have to clear immigration, however many US citizens have Global Entry which is expedited vs "regular" passengers.
The only UK airport that has the passenger levels and finances to justify PBC IMHO is Heathrow. However its a logistical nightmare as 6 airlines operate flights to the US from 3 different terminals.
It would be interesting to see if Gatwick got PBC whether any airlines would transfer flights over from Heathrow.
I flew to Chicago from LHR in September last year. Was one of the last passengers on the A380 to get to immigration (after a flight deck visit) and the queue for immigration took 30 minutes. Whilst not as quick as e-gates in the UK, it's not bad either - however I think immigration does vary from airport to airport in the US (I've heard IAH is a bit of a nightmare for connecting passengers).
KARFA
Well-Known Member
- Jun 3, 2014
- 1,429
- 133
8m. what proportion of the travellers on any particular day that represents i don't know, but my experience is still a small minority tbh as you can see how many people head to the GE kiosks as opposed to other lines.
Also as most regular UK travellers who go to the US have GE anyway now, the whole pre-clearance thing is becoming less valuable over time. Certainly I wouldn't go out of my way just to do pre-clearance.
Lots of interesting points of view in relation to the merits or otherwise of pre-clearance. The fact that the airport appears to be pushing ahead with an application and has set aside £5M for this stage of the process, suggests to me that they feel it is worthwhile and most importantly achievable. Given that S25 is the target time for going live, this doesn’t leave long for plans to be drawn up and execution of some form of terminal redevelopment/extension that would definitely be required.
- Moderator
- #132
I think that we have to accept that Mr Dewar is confident that it is viable for EDI.
diamond geezer
Active Member
A bit quiet on the route development rumour front. What, if any, new routes or operators (besides those already announced) can we look forward to in summer 2024? American returning? Icelandair arriving? A new US destination from United or Delta? A Wizzair UK base?
American returning looks to be very likely. AA have recently taken delivery of a number of 787’s. Having just returned from a trip to TX, it was very interesting to see visit scotland tv marketing ads on certain channels. I just wonder if a DFW route may be on the radar. I don’t see Wizz committing to a base at EDI. To be honest, not sure if it’s worth the effort. They have already slashed the Budapest route, to their home hub. Ryanair still operating with near 100% LF’s. Something don’t add up as to why they allow their number one competitor to more or less dominate the route. Icelandair is a long shot probably. They’ve applied for slots in last two summer ACL’s but never started. In relation to Iceland, PLAY have already cut frequency at GLA from 3 to 2 x weekly. Market overload perhaps?
diamond geezer
Active Member
Courtesy of the JetBlue thread on airliners.net:
With EDI management very confident of securing pre-clearance, could be a good couple of weeks ahead for EDI. I’m hearing (as of yesterday) that another US route is a strong possibility for S24. Sworn to secrecy….😀
diamond geezer
Active Member
How about a wee hint to brighten up a dreary Saturday @Jetsco ? A new route from an existing carrier?
Remove Advertisements
Subscribe to help support your favourite forum and in return we'll remove all our advertisements. Your contribution will help to pay for things like site maintenance, domain name renewals and annual server charges.
Trending Hashtags
-
#LiverpoolJohnLennonWeight: 3
-
#liverpoolairportWeight: 3
-
#Jet2Weight: 2
-
#LaCompagnieWeight: 1
-
#EasyJetWeight: 1
-
#REGENWeight: 1