Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Stephen Strange

Before doing anything with runways, they should really be prioritising new stands imo. Pier F should be built, then Pier B should be knocked down as quickly as humanly possible.

You can land as many aircraft as you like, but at the moment there is nowhere to put them a lot of the time.

roadmaster

With improving technology are we likely to see less need for hubs and more point to point flying. Such as with better fuel economy the likes of Ethiopian will not need to stop in dublin and the Kuwaitis wont need shannon.

marno21

roadmaster wrote: »

With improving technology are we likely to see less need for hubs and more point to point flying. Such as with better fuel economy the likes of Ethiopian will not need to stop in dublin and the Kuwaitis wont need shannon.

Kuwait aren't stopping in Shannon for fuel, it's to clear security in Shannon. 77W is already able to make it transatlantic from Kuwait City and is used for transatlantic services from other airlines based in the region such as Emirates

Stephen Strange

Stephen Strange wrote: »

Before doing anything with runways, they should really be prioritising new stands imo. Pier F should be built, then Pier B should be knocked down as quickly as humanly possible.

You can land as many aircraft as you like, but at the moment there is nowhere to put them a lot of the time.

Well see that’s not really true. There’s over 100 stands and the runway can handle 49 planes an hour. So there’s enough stands for 2 hours movements. Not all these stands are passenger ops capable obviously. But about 80-90 are, so there’s stand capacity for about 90-120 mins l. The DAA have plans to add at least another 20-25 stands east of the runway in the next few years. So part of the issue here is how the stands are used by the airlines and the DAA.

The main problem at Dublin is taxiway infrastructure. There’s still two cul de sacs which becomes 4 when heavies are pushed. I won’t count apron 1 and 2 as a cul de sac.

Even using dual ops and being able to shift more planes per hour there is still huge congestion around Link 1 and 2 because of the Ryanair wingtip issue. So there is delays getting arrivals on to stand south of T2 and occasionally north of T2 due to backlogged departures. The biggest issue here is the proximity of terminals and stands to the holding area for the main runway. Handy for a small quiet airport, not so for a busy airport where you need space. The push here from the DAA should be reorganisation of stands and taxiways to allow dual taxiways where possible for free flow operations. There is plans afoot to do so with an extension of the foxes and a realignment of Alpha and the widening of Zulu and Bravo 1 to allow a heavy pass a medium.

There’s also plans for taxiways at Link 3 and 6 to 16/34. But there should also be a taxiway between E3 and H2 (engine test site being built here) and in to the west apron to allow faster tows off and to T2. More aircraft need to be taken off stand during long turns and fuelled/catered/cleaned remotely and just towed to stand to be loaded for departure. The morning TAs should be dragged off stand within minutes of pax/bags/cargo being offloaded rather than being towed during the first wave. They should also throw in a few widebody stands in the E3-H3 triangle so they are nearer to T1-2 and thus quicker to get to/from the terminals.

I was led to believe no work was done in reference to taxiways and new stands while they overlayed the runway as the focus was on the overlay and they didn’t want to add additional complexity by closing taxiways and stands for months. But now they need to change focus and build taxiways everywhere literally everywhere.

roadmaster

marno21 wrote: »

Kuwait aren't stopping in Shannon for fuel, it's to clear security in Shannon. 77W is already able to make it transatlantic from Kuwait City and is used for transatlantic services from other airlines based in the region such as Emirates

That could change in the future pre clearence maybe done in more countrys

Kev11491

roadmaster wrote: »

That could change in the future pre clearence maybe done in more countrys

Like Manchester airports new terminal, its being proposed.

Tenger

Kev11491 wrote: »

Like Manchester airports new terminal, its being proposed.

‘Proposed’ and actually happening can vary a lot in timeframe. It has already been suggested for Heathrow, which is a grand jest.
T2 was built in 2009/10 with CBP integral to the design. Currently there are no designs in place for similar terminal in Europe.

Mebuntu

Stephen Strange wrote: »

then Pier B should be knocked down as quickly as humanly possible.

I'm curious to know why you feel Pier B (300 gates) should be knocked down. What would you replace it with? Could they fit more stands in that area with a different design?

The DAA's original plan was to extend Pier B out and close crosswind runway 16/34 but, thankfully, that nonsense seems to have been finally shot down.

Tenger

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Its hard to design a terminal for a carrier who has changed its business model 3 times in the last 15-20 years or so!

Its just PR from EI with empty threats, they support more stands but don't support for example a new pier to give a true passenger experience......

100% agree. When T2 was beginning construction EI actually threatened not to use it. Their CEO at the time was experimenting with bases outside the RoI in an effort to diversify the business.

10 years ago they weren’t selling themselves as a connection between US and Europe. In fact from 2005 LH and SH had been run as 2 separate divisions. Only after the arrival of the German CEO in late 2010 did they start properly marketing the advantages of Dublin for connections.

Donegal Storm

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0625/973083-daa-runway/

This must be the 5th or 6th time this same comment has been made yet there's still seemingly no progress being made on construction. It all seems very slow and laborious considering how obviously critical it is.

markpb

Donegal Storm wrote: »

This must be the 5th or 6th time this same comment has been made yet there's still seemingly no progress being made on construction.

From that article, his comment seems more aimed at getting the government to remove the problems caused by the restriction on operating hours imposed by the planning permission.

plodder

markpb wrote: »

From that article, his comment seems more aimed at getting the government to remove the problems caused by the restriction on operating hours imposed by the planning permission.

As far as I was aware they were proceeding with construction, and in parallel trying to get the conditions changed. Has that changed?

marno21

RTE wrote:

Separately Minister Ross said a report is due out shortly on the possibility of expanding Dublin Airport.

He said that perhaps the building of a new independent terminal should be looked at.

However, Mr Philips said that a new terminal would not be needed until the 2040s.

Maybe he's focused on the 2nd runway but given current growth that comment about the 3rd terminal is a strange one.

Stephen Strange

Mebuntu wrote: »

I'm curious to know why you feel Pier B (300 gates) should be knocked down. What would you replace it with? Could they fit more stands in that area with a different design?

The DAA's original plan was to extend Pier B out and close crosswind runway 16/34 but, thankfully, that nonsense seems to have been finally shot down.

Because A, it's an absolute kip and B, yes they could fit more stands. I know you're saying it would affect 16/34, I thought that was going anyway?

LXFlyer

Stephen Strange wrote: »

Because A, it's an absolute kip and B, yes they could fit more stands

The 300 gate area isn’t that bad being honest. Having the dedicated immigration booths also means you’re unaffected by any mayhem at the 100/200 Gates.

That plan you’ve linked to encroached onto the footprint of runway 16/34 as I recall.

As far as I’m aware that idea has now been shelved.

VG31

Pier 3 is probably the best gate area in Terminal 1. Mainly because it has airbridges and it is by far the shortest walk (as long as you're not on an EI flight). And as mentioned above it has it's own passport control so the big queues at the Pier 1/2 area aren't an issue. It's a bit old but the recent renovations have improved it.

I departed from Pier 2 about six months ago for the first time in two years and it is much better than it used to be.

Mebuntu

Stephen Strange wrote: »

Because A, it's an absolute kip and B, yes they could fit more stands. I know you're saying it would affect 16/34, I thought that was going anyway?

I wouldn't agree at all that it's a kip. The DAA did a nice refurbishment job inside the terminal which is their forte....BUT

When the DAA produced the original future plan you attached they didn't understand the relevance and importance of 16/34 to DUB and why it needed to be kept. In their lack of understanding of anything airside they thought that because LHR can cope without a crosswind runway that DUB could do likewise. Then some knowledgeable aviation people took them quietly aside and explained it all to them so it was dropped.

Stephen Strange

Fair enough, but while cosmetically it looks ok, it has some fairly big issues.

The Immigration area is a state, the behind the scenes facilities are rubbish, it leaks like a sieve and there a big sewerage issues. If they plan to keep it, all of those issues really need to be addressed.

Mebuntu

Mebuntu wrote: »

Stephen Strange wrote: »

Because A, it's an absolute kip and B, yes they could fit more stands. I know you're saying it would affect 16/34, I thought that was going anyway?

I wouldn't agree at all that it's a kip. The DAA did a nice refurbishment job inside the terminal which is their forte....BUT

When the DAA produced the original future plan you attached they didn't understand the relevance and importance of 16/34 to DUB and why it needed to be kept. In their lack of understanding of anything airside they thought that because LHR can cope without a crosswind runway that DUB could do likewise. Then some knowledgeable aviation people took them quietly aside and explained it all to them so it was dropped.

The DAA have drawn a line in the sand for the closure of 16/34 and it’s only 6-7 years away.

Blut2

+1 for the liking Pier 3.

Its a far shorter walk than loads of the other gates, and way quicker to arrive home into with its own dedicated immigration area. Plus its got nice views when you're waiting to board. "it's a kip" is a huge stretch when there are many capital city airports in Europe that have un-airconditoned, corrugated iron sheds functioning as gates - they're actual kips. Pier 3 isn't new or fancy, but its absolutely fine for passengers.

Stephen Strange

Blut2 wrote: »

+1 for the liking Pier 3.

Its a far shorter walk than loads of the other gates, and way quicker to arrive home into with its own dedicated immigration area. Plus its got nice views when you're waiting to board. "it's a kip" is a huge stretch when there are many capital city airports in Europe that have un-airconditoned, corrugated iron sheds functioning as gates - they're actual kips. Pier 3 isn't new or fancy, but its absolutely fine for passengers.

I suppose when I say it's a kip, I'm not purely thinking of it from a passenger point of view.

Irish Steve

If DAA are going with a policy of getting rid of 16/34, they are also effectively before too much longer going to be going with a policy (like some other airports) that they don't want anything smaller than an A319 operating in and out of Dublin, so that will finish the ATR/Dash 8 services.

That to me will be a very short sighted policy, as there are a significant number of routes that cannot justify the larger airframes, and unless Weston (or Baldonnel) is going to become available for a lot more flights, there is not a suitable alternative that ATR/Dash 8 size flights can operate to and from. If smaller turboprops are no longer welcome at Dublin, that will also kill a lot of the interlining potential, as people won't bother if they have to mess around getting to Dublin airport from Weston or Baldonnel, given the time that will take, and the other associated problems of customs and the like.

I said a long time ago that Aer Rianta (as it was at that time) were good for running Ireland's largest Pub, but that was all they were good for, and I am beginning to wonder if the DAA are much better, they seem to have very little awareness of the aviation side of the operation with some of the decisions that have been made.

Mebuntu

Deleted User wrote: »

The DAA have drawn a line in the sand for the closure of 16/34 and it’s only 6-7 years away.

Surprised to hear that. Last I heard from some pilots and ATC I know was that 16/34 would close over their dead bodies (especially the former).

So what happens when nothing will be able to land on either of the 28/10's as has happened many times with the existing 28/10?

With the expected increase in passenger numbers in 6/7 years time there will be even more flights to divert in such circumstances.

I wonder what does EI and FR think of this plan which could lead to most of their DUB fleet/crews out of position not to mention the unfortunate passengers?

trellheim

Some numbers please. What are the numbers of 16/34 movements vs 28/10 in the past few years percentage wise ? Ignore runway maintenance if at all possible. As a regular in and out 16 is rare and 34 is really rare

Jamie2k9

trellheim wrote: »

Some numbers please. What are the numbers of 16/34 movements vs 28/10 in the past few years percentage wise ? Ignore runway maintenance if at all possible. As a regular in and out 16 is rare and 34 is really rare

Less than 5%, now I don't know if this includes the dual runway ops which use 16/34 but that isn't because they have to so suspect not.

LXFlyer

Deleted User wrote: »

The DAA have drawn a line in the sand for the closure of 16/34 and it’s only 6-7 years away.

Where has this been publicly stated?

Chris_5339762

Yeah... last I heard it was being left in and the plans for the new runway accounted for this... along with the "only when absolutely necessary will it be used" clause.

Getting rid of it would be daft. 34 is used very rarely, but 16 is often used during the winter.

Captain_Crash

Right now, if the wind is coming from the south 16 will be used, my understanding is that this doesn't mean 10/28 cant be used. I'd love to see numbers for when its used vs when its needed*, as I doubt its very often.

*Needed being when the winds don't allow ops on 10/28

plodder

trellheim wrote: »

Some numbers please. What are the numbers of 16/34 movements vs 28/10 in the past few years percentage wise ? Ignore runway maintenance if at all possible. As a regular in and out 16 is rare and 34 is really rare

16 was very busy last night for arrivals.

Mebuntu

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Right now, if the wind is coming from the south 16 will be used, my understanding is that this doesn't mean 10/28 cant be used. I'd love to see numbers for when its used vs when its needed*, as I doubt its very often.

*Needed being when the winds don't allow ops on 10/28

I don't quite get the logic behind that.

AFAIK, using 16 slows down the whole operation at DUB so why would they change to 16 if 28/10 is actually usable?