Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Jamie2k9

andy_g wrote: »

Major problem is that the DAA want the current infrastructure to handle 50mil with only slight modification and i dont see that working.

Slight is misleading, 40+ extra gates, bigger security/immigration, new runway, improved taxi system.

andy_g

Not according to the staff magazine if you can get your hands on it unless its a typo

Pat Dunne

andy_g wrote: »

Not according to the staff magazine if you can get your hands on it unless its a typo

What does the staff magazine say?

andy_g

Pat Dunne wrote: »

What does the staff magazine say?

ill dig it out when home try scan a page

andy_g

Like the South Busing Gates there is a plan for the north busing gates

medoc

Is the location of runway 16/34 impeding the expansion of the piers? How important is it to the operation of the airport after the parallel runway opens? How often is it necessary to use it because of wind? Sorry for the questions. I’m very interested in the airport and it’s development, but not very technical with all the ins and outs. Heathrow only has parallel runways. And possibly Manchester??

L1011

Our parallel runways will be at a not very favourable angle for wind and removing 16/34 would leave the airport having to actually close in some conditions that it otherwise wouldn't. Not great for building a TATL hub!

plodder

L1011 wrote: »

Our parallel runways will be at a not very favourable angle for wind and removing 16/34 would leave the airport having to actually close in some conditions that it otherwise wouldn't. Not great for building a TATL hub!

Really? 10/28 is not a favourable angle?

goingnowhere

10/28 was designed on the basis of a review of wind patterns so should be the most optimal

Heathrow had a 3rd runway a long time ago...

L1011

plodder wrote: »

Really? 10/28 is not a favourable angle?

The former runway that was taken out of service after it was built was the most favourable for the prevailing winds. 10/28 is sub-optimal and there are days when it is unusable due to crosswinds.

plodder

L1011 wrote: »

The former runway that was taken out of service after it was built was the most favourable for the prevailing winds. 10/28 is sub-optimal and there are days when it is unusable due to crosswinds.

Why would they have designed a runway that was sub-optimal? Also, I notice Heathrow's runways are 09/27, only a difference of 10 degrees.

L1011

plodder wrote: »

Why would they have designed a runway that was sub-optimal? Also, I notice Heathrow's runways are 09/27, only a difference of 10 degrees.

The entire project was sub-optimal - it was never meant to be that short but the Shannon lobby had it crippled to try ensure they kept the stopover (better aircraft ensured that wasn't needed)

HTCOne

The mean wind direction in Ireland is south westerly, so something like a runway 05/23 or 06/24 like at Shannon is the perfect orientation for Ireland.

A big runway in that orientation in DUB would result in all departures routing over heavily built up areas at low level so that is possibly why 10/28 is the angle it is.

10/28 was supposed to be the same length as 06/24 in Shannon (3,200m) but TDs in Clare and Limerick threatened to topple the government if it wasn’t shortened, so it was. It was built deliberately too short for heavy jets of the day (747, DC10, L1011 etc) to be able to get off the runway at MTOW, this aiming to enforce any aircraft intending to cross the Atlantic into stopping in Shannon. The net result was that much traffic which may have considered routing via DUB ended up in MAN, not SNN as envisaged.

not1but4

HTCOne wrote: »

10/28 was supposed to be the same length as 06/24 in Shannon (3,200m) but TDs in Clare and Limerick threatened to topple the government if it wasn’t shortened, so it was. It was built deliberately too short for heavy jets of the day (747, DC10, L1011 etc) to be able to get off the runway at MTOW, this aiming to enforce any aircraft intending to cross the Atlantic into stopping in Shannon. The net result was that much traffic which may have considered routing via DUB ended up in MAN, not SNN as envisaged.

Please tell me you are kidding and that didn't actually happen? :eek:

LXFlyer

not1but4 wrote: »

Please tell me you are kidding and that didn't actually happen? :eek:

Read and weep....

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86862158&postcount=3

Pat Dunne

not1but4 wrote: »

Please tell me you are kidding and that didn't actually happen? :eek:

I am afraid that is how Ireland worked back in the 1980's and it hasn't really changed much since then!
Could you imagine the carry on if the Healy-Rea's represented Clare. :eek:

JCX BXC

Still some very hard feelings from it all it seems.

JCX BXC

280° is not a particularly bad angle, it gets very tricky when strong winds from a direction like 210/220° arrives though.

Note this chart from Met Eireann regarding wind directions at Dublin



While something like 240° would be ideal, 280° works most of the time and keeps air traffic away from many subarbs.

Irish Steve

not1but4 wrote: »

Please tell me you are kidding and that didn't actually happen? :eek:

It can and it still could, welcome to the reality of Parish Pump politics in modern Ireland. The runway length at Dublin was one of the factors that killed off the Singapore Airlines freight flights, they couldn't get out of Dublin with a full load and enough fuel for the return flight, so they had to land elsewhere to get enough fuel for the trip.



The same sort of issues will almost certainly happen to any realistic plan for sensible rail links to the airport, the down country TD's like the Healy-Rae's will want the same sort of services for Ballygobackwards, despite the fact that the population of Dublin is orders of magnitude greater than the areas down country.



I can almost hear it now, they'll be wanting a rail service from Limerick to Shannon as part of the same deal, despite the fact that there are way more passengers per month using Dublin than go through Shannon in a year, and the reality is that a rail link to Shannon would be closed for several months of the year by flooding on the tracks, it happens now, and it has been already stated by Irish Rail that for the numbers involved, it's too expensive to fix.



You only have to look in the Commuting and Transport forum at the West Rail Corridor thread to see the sort of drivel that some of these people come up with, but with the impotent political system that operates now, the hard decisions never get made, or get fudged to appease one or other vested interest from another area.


Let's just imagine for a minute how many trans atlantic flights would be operating to Ireland if the full Shannon stop (i.e. a landing in Shannon on both the inbound and outbound flight) were still in place. I can guarantee you that there would be a lot less, and things like the Norwegian flights from Cork would never have happened, the additional costs and delays from having to make 2 stops in Shannon would make a nonsense of the economics of the service, many of the maintenance costs would be doubled, as most of the service items are based on cycles, not on time in the air, and the stop at Shannon doubles the cycles. That's big bucks, let alone the additional costs of the handling, crewing and other related items.



The Apple data centre in Athenry is another classic example, jobs and investment for an area that desperately needs it killed off by objections from people that don't even live or work in the area.

JCX BXC

Without getting too far off topic, Irish Steve I don't think it is as severe nowadays as you're making it out to be. Yes politicans still say "I want this and I want that" but it most certainly does not mean they will get it. Infact they'd be a terrible representative if they didn't. Years ago these lobbies were strong and there was a lot of under the table playing, nowadays thinks are a little less so corrupt. The Healy-Rays can blab on about nonsense, but they won't really make a large difference.

I think we are all looking at it from our own backyard. Dublins infastructural development is now far less hindered than it was previously by some anti-everything lobbyists, with the main thing holding it back is the incompetence to do anything whatsoever. Who's trying to hold back the second runway? Shannon? Nope, it's the local residents in Dublin.

Cookiemunster

Irish Steve wrote: »

I can almost hear it now, they'll be wanting a rail service from Limerick to Shannon as part of the same deal, despite the fact that there are way more passengers per month using Dublin than go through Shannon in a year, and the reality is that a rail link to Shannon would be closed for several months of the year by flooding on the tracks, it happens now, and it has been already stated by Irish Rail that for the numbers involved, it's too expensive to fix.

Firstly, the events you're refering to were 30 years ago. It's time to let it go.

Secondly a rail spur from the Limerick - Ennis line at Sixmilebridge to Shannon has already been studied and found to be non viable. That's despite there being over 38K vehicles traveling on the N18 between Limerick and Shannon every day.

If one was ever built it would be to service the thousands of commuters who work in Shannon, but live in Limerick rather than the airport. And it wouldn't be closed 6 months a years as the flooding occurs on the Ennis side of Shannon.

JCX BXC

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Firstly, the events you're refering to were 30 years ago. It's time to let it go.

Secondly a rail spur from the Limerick - Ennis line at Sixmilebridge to Shannon has already been studied and found to be non viable. That's despite there being over 38K vehicles traveling on the N18 between Limerick and Shannon every day.

If one was ever built it would be to service the thousands of commuters who work in Shannon, but live in Limerick rather than the airport. And it wouldn't be closed 6 months a years as the flooding occurs on the Ennis side of Shannon.

To be honest Cookiemunster, I didn't take it as a serious point, more hard feelings left several years on from an ancient political situation.

Irish Steve

The decisions about the runway at Dublin may well have been 30 years ago, but the effects of those decisions are still impacting what is happening now, and will continue to do so for some time to come. Rail to the airport at Dublin should have happened quite some time ago, but it's mired in the system, and not likely to happen for some time to come, despite being long overdue, given the size and location of the airport, and the other much discussed problems that are still affecting the airport and the area around it. The longer it's left on the long finger, the harder it will be to put in, as other developments take place and reduce the space available both on and under the ground to put it in to place.

I saw provisional plans for the airport area over 20 years ago that had an outline of the second runway, I can't remember where I saw them, but it was there, and some of the people who are objecting now about the plans would have known that the second runway was coming, and what's happening now is not really about the runway, it's about people who have moved into the area since the plans were published now seeking to extract as much "compensation" as possible from the system.

There's no doubt that in some areas, things have moved on, the corruption that was endemic back then has changed, the rules in place now make it a lot harder for people to "buy" the system, but it hasn't changed the attitudes of some of the people that are making the decisions, and some of those people should not be within a million miles of critical decision making that affects massive numbers of people, as they are not capable of looking at the bigger picture, they are only focussed on their own little local issues, and can't cope with the bigger picture. The end result is that too many things that would benefit large numbers of people over a wide area end up not happening, or massively compromised as a result of pandering to local issues that make the whole scheme less effective than it should have been.

The expansion of Dublin should no longer be looking at the impact on Shannon, or any other Irish Airport, Dublin is not as such competing with them any more, the competition is places like Manchester, Birmingham, and other airports across Europe, and Dublin is very well placed geographically to be a very effective hub for much of Europe, even more so if some aspects of the uncertainty over Brexit happen as seems possible.

The politicians here should be doing everything they can to encourage development at Dublin, to keep Ireland in the forefront of peoples minds when it comes to foreign direct investment, and I'm not convinced that they are doing that as well as they should be.

Phen2206

JCX BXC wrote: »

Who's trying to hold back the second runway? Shannon? Nope, it's the local residents in Dublin.

To be fair, you can probably expect that residents close to any airport will oppose its expansion.

Irish Steve wrote: »

The expansion of Dublin should no longer be looking at the impact on Shannon, or any other Irish Airport, Dublin is not as such competing with them any more, the competition is places like Manchester, Birmingham, and other airports across Europe, and Dublin is very well placed geographically to be a very effective hub for much of Europe, even more so if some aspects of the uncertainty over Brexit happen as seems possible.

The politicians here should be doing everything they can to encourage development at Dublin, to keep Ireland in the forefront of peoples minds when it comes to foreign direct investment, and I'm not convinced that they are doing that as well as they should be.

Very well said. I'm from the West but I completely agree that Dublin is and can only be the focus of such large scale infrastructural investments. Until somewhere else in the country can compete with Dublin, the focus should be on getting DUB right and not pandering to whinging local politicians in Clare or anywhere else.

What happened back in the 80s with 10/28 is nothing short of disgraceful. If you look at Google Earth/maps, you can see a lot of space at the 10 end of 10/28 - its more than enough for another 400m which would have made it around 3000m in total - which would be considered a decent runway. DUB is lucky that aircraft performance has greatly improved in the last 30 years and the fact DUB is not hot and high makes 10/28 acceptable for almost all transatlantic hops.

Irish Steve

Dublin isn't marginal for the Atlantic due to the position on the west of the continent here, there are times when 16 can be used for east coast departures, but 10/28 is marginal or restrictive for the Far East, which should be figuring every bit as much as the Americas, given how dominant the Chinese economy is becoming.

While it's not too much of a problem for any of the modern wide body jets to get out of Dublin with fuel for China etc even with a full passenger load, what makes it much more attractive to airlines is when they can take a full passenger load AND a full freight load, which is not possible at the moment until the second runway gets built.

Blut2

With the amount of 'available' space on the end still from the looks of things on Google Maps, is there any reason 10/28 has never been extended?

plodder

Blut2 wrote: »

With the amount of 'available' space on the end still from the looks of things on Google Maps, is there any reason 10/28 has never been extended?

I'd imagine that the second runway (making it long enough) was a better solution to that problem over the hassle of extending an existing, functioning runway.

Irish Steve

There would be problems with the location of the road at either end,it would have to be put into a tunnel to avoid gaps in the lighting at critical parts of the approach.

Extending either end would also create some problems with existing ILS antennae, and the approach lighting, and these things can't be moved overnight, and have to be calibrated after they've been moved, and there are only certain days that such changes can be made, due to the propagation delays in the information systems used by the airlines, getting the relevant information into those systems is not instant, and using out of date information about the location of this sort of equipment has significant safety implications.

Then there's the safety aspect of having very large heavy plant and machinery operating that close to an active runway, it wouldn't happen easily, and there are again massive safety implications, so realistically, such a change would be better done once 28R/10L is up and running, closing the existing runway for a period, or operating with a displaced threshold while the work is done would be less problematic than trying to do it and keeping the runway open.

Doing work of this nature during the (relatively) quieter winter months is not an ideal option, as the ILS systems would be out of action for the duration of the work, which could mean significant disruption to the airlines if they can't land as a result.

Longer runways don’t equal more capacity.

JCX BXC

Phen2206 wrote: »

To be fair, you can probably expect that residents close to any airport will oppose its expansion.

Yeah, but my point was that Dublins expansion nowadays is not being held back by anyone but the local area itself, so this Shannon lobby whinge is years outdated.