Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Jamie2k9

New Transfer Facility has opened.

https://www.dublinairport.com/latest-news/detail/dublin-airport-opens-new-transfer-facility

Gaoth Laidir

Here's a very good video on runway design considerations.

https://youtu.be/5QZ3eozyQfU

MICKEYG

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

New Transfer Facility has opened.

https://www.dublinairport.com/latest-news/detail/dublin-airport-opens-new-transfer-facility

I would love to see a floor plan for the new layout to see the new flow for people versus the old.
Maybe with routes for intra EU and EU - USA and USA-EU passengers transits.

goingnowhere

My understanding is if arriving at a 400 gate you do NOT proceed to the passport area but enter the connections area which is above the 407-411. You are then routed back into T2 directly, no security screening

If you arrive with Emirates you are find yourself in a new corridor which links gate 408/410 to the passport area and proceed as before, I assume this means

1. Arrival EEA/CA/US to 400 gate - new connections
2. Arrival Emirates - old connections
2. Arrival 300 gates - old connections
2. Arrival T2 bus gates - new connections?

There is a one way door at the top of the T2 arrivals corridor so you cannot sneak in from the 300 gates or double back from a Emirates flight

EI will have to now use 300 gates for any flights to/from Turkey

Jamie2k9

goingnowhere wrote: »

My understanding is if arriving at a 400 gate you do NOT proceed to the passport area but enter the connections area which is above the 407-411. You are then routed back into T2 directly, no security screening

If you arrive with Emirates you are find yourself in a new corridor which links gate 408/410 to the passport area and proceed as before, I assume this means

1. Arrival EEA/CA/US to 400 gate - new connections
2. Arrival Emirates - old connections
2. Arrival 300 gates - old connections
2. Arrival T2 bus gates - new connections?

There is a one way door at the top of the T2 arrivals corridor so you cannot sneak in from the 300 gates or double back from a Emirates flight

EI will have to now use 300 gates for any flights to/from Turkey

EK are at gate 414/418 often so there must be a re-routing available in the new building, thew regulator plans for 2014 said auto pass lanes, security lanes and immigration desks.

It would be closed when EI flights from Turkey arrive now.

flexcon

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Here's a very good video on runway design considerations.

https://youtu.be/5QZ3eozyQfU

interesting indeed! Dublin Airport, what will be the distance between existing runway and new? Are they still too close together to run at the same time?

goingnowhere

The distance is sufficient for parallel ops

Runway 34 is 2072m long which gives some kind of indication of the distance between the two. Bit of maths will get the real number but it would be 1500m+

HTCOne

The required minimum distance is seven hundred and something meters IIRC (I think it’s 760), so full parallel ops will be in use. Capacity will go from 52 movements per hour in current dual runway mode to 80

G_R

HTCOne wrote: »

The required minimum distance is seven hundred and something meters IIRC (I think it’s 760), so full parallel ops will be in use. Capacity will go from 52 movements per hour in current dual runway mode to 80

Out of curiosity, why does it not go to 104 movements? Why only 80

HTCOne

HTCOne wrote: »

The required minimum distance is seven hundred and something meters IIRC (I think it’s 760), so full parallel ops will be in use. Capacity will go from 52 movements per hour in current dual runway mode to 80

2.2.1.1 Independent parallel approaches may be conducted to parallel runways provided that:
a) the runway centre lines are spaced by the distance specified in Annex 14, Volume I: and
1) where runway centre lines are spaced by less than 1 310 m but not less than
1 035 m, suitable SSR equipment, with a minimum azimuth accuracy of
0.06 degrees (one sigma), an update period of 2.5 seconds or less and a high
resolution display providing position prediction and deviation alert, is available; or
2) where runway centre lines are spaced by less than 1 525 m but not less than
1 310 m, SSR equipment with performance specification other than the foregoing
may be applied, provided they are equal to or better than those stated under 3)
below, and when it is determined that the safety of aircraft operation would not be
adversely affected; or
3) where runway centre lines are spaced by 1 525 m or more, suitable surveillance
radar with a minimum azimuth accuracy of 0.3 degrees (one sigma) or better and
update period of 5 seconds or less is available;

https://www.icao.int/Meetings/AMC/MA/Eleventh%20Air%20Navigation%20Conference%20(ANConf11)/anconf11_ip003_app_en.pdf

Runway and airspace capacity
The analysis shows that the maximum achievable runway throughput on Runway 10-28 is 24 arrivals
in arrivals mode, 41 departures in departures mode and 48 flights in mixed mode (assuming S18
design day fleet mix).

https://www.aviationreg.ie/_fileupload/Helios%20capacity%20assessment%20workstream%202/P2410D008_Final_Report_v1_5_1%20(clean).pdf

The magic numbers you seek are 48 and 1310m and 1525m

L1011

Current dual mode uses 28 and 34 for takeoffs but only 28 for landings; so full dual would not be twice that.

moloner4

moloner4 wrote: »

I'd assume taxiway and terminal constraints?

Terminal constraints have no impact on runway capacity. Taxiways have an impact on Runway Occupancy Times which determines runway capacity.

There is no point using dual runway capacity figures as they are for only 90 mins on days when conditions allow its use.

HTCOne

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://www.icao.int/Meetings/AMC/MA/Eleventh%20Air%20Navigation%20Conference%20(ANConf11)/anconf11_ip003_app_en.pdf



https://www.aviationreg.ie/_fileupload/Helios%20capacity%20assessment%20workstream%202/P2410D008_Final_Report_v1_5_1%20(clean).pdf

The magic numbers you seek are 48 and 1310m and 1525m

We’re both wrong, it’s 50 movements currently

https://www.public.nm.eurocontrol.int/PUBPORTAL/gateway/spec/PORTAL.22.0.0.4.31/detachedViews/networkevent.html?viewId=EVENT_VIEWER_DV&parameter_set_id=0

I think the 48 figure was from before they reduced the minimum separation between two departures... ie the tower controller can now clear a departure when the preceding departure has travelled half a mile less past the runway end than previously (wake turbulence permitting of course).

And those distance figures are for minimum distance between simultaneous arrivals, not for dual runways in single use, plus there’s ways around them anyway, look at SFO.

rushfan

Deleted User wrote:

The magic numbers you seek are 48 and 1310m and 1525m

Impressive!! On a Friday night?

Chris_5339762

Deleted User wrote: »

There is no point using dual runway capacity figures as they are for only 90 mins on days when conditions allow its use.

And even then the second runway (34) is only used for the odd plane and does not take the same number of planes as 28.

Jamie2k9

'A disservice to the nation': Pilots say Dublin Airport's new runway will be too short
The Irish Air Line Pilots’ Association claims the length will stop DAA from developing new routes.

Prefect time to deflect, they have had over 2 years to raise there concerns.... I don't think it will have any major impact on the airport and potential routes.

Dublin Airport Authority (DAA), which runs the airports in Dublin and Cork, is to consult with An Bord Pleanála (ABP) about proposed changes to its planned second main runway - known as the North Runway.

The main change proposed is that the outer shoulder areas on either side of the runway - which are within the 75m width - will be changed from fully paved to reinforced grass, in line with new EASA guidelines.

Following consultation with airlines, a number of taxiways relating to the new runway development will either be relocated or removed. There are also some planned minor changes to roads on the airfield.

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/daa-to-consult-on-proposed-changes-to-new-runway-37227505.html

Idbatterim

Really surprising how the new runway is 3000m, pretty staggering. Wouldn’t have surprised me if a 1500m one was to be built, to save a few euro. Just send the atr and 737 and 320 ‘s down it 🙄

Hotblack Desiato

I assume you're joking, but not that long ago it was official government policy to cripple Dublin and hold airlines and passengers to ransom and send them to Shannon. When you're taken to a place you don't want to go it's called Kidnapping

Tenger

I think that may be an overstatement. Shannon stopover was enacted by local politics in the 1970s. It ended in the early 2000s although Aer Lingus continued to stop in Shannon on some flights for a few years after that.

Locker10a

Tenger wrote: »

I think that may be an overstatement. Shannon stopover was enacted by local politics in the 1970s. It ended in the early 2000s although Aer Lingus continued to stop in Shannon on some flights for a few years after that.

Also, people seem to have really forgotten or weren’t aware that the aviation industry was very regulated up until 20 years ago or so. There would have been terms and conditions attatched to any international routes, including in Europe before EU openskies, it’s wasn’t a matter of anyone can fly anywhere like it is today.

trellheim

I think that may be an overstatement. Shannon stopover was enacted by local politics in the 1970s. It ended in the early 2000s although Aer Lingus continued to stop in Shannon on some flights for a few years after that.

I've been thinking about basing more 330s in shannon. This is where they would start their journey - so e.g SNN-DUB-JFK and JFK-DUB-SNN in reverse The idea is to reduce use of T2 stand time , especially if you can bus them to the airplane. You then have acft servicing time and cleaning done before Dub so any time on the ground is just loading pax, baggage and fuel.

nim1bdeh38l2cw

trellheim wrote: »

I've been thinking about basing more 330s in shannon. This is where they would start their journey - so e.g SNN-DUB-JFK and JFK-DUB-SNN in reverse The idea is to reduce use of T2 stand time , especially if you can bus them to the airplane. You then have acft servicing time and cleaning done before Dub so any time on the ground is just loading pax, baggage and fuel.

Shannon is only 2 hours down the road from Dublin, so why not go SNN-JFK and bypass Dublin altogether....

Locker10a

Musa Embarrassed Strap wrote: »

trellheim wrote: »

I've been thinking about basing more 330s in shannon. This is where they would start their journey - so e.g SNN-DUB-JFK and JFK-DUB-SNN in reverse The idea is to reduce use of T2 stand time , especially if you can bus them to the airplane. You then have acft servicing time and cleaning done before Dub so any time on the ground is just loading pax, baggage and fuel.

Shannon is only 2 hours down the road from Dublin, so why not go SNN-JFK and bypass Dublin altogether....

They already do, but SNN doesn’t have connections to almost every European city and so can be used a hub to connect passengers get between Europe and the US

Hotblack Desiato

trellheim wrote: »

I've been thinking about basing more 330s in shannon. This is where they would start their journey - so e.g SNN-DUB-JFK and JFK-DUB-SNN in reverse

Whatever about wasting fuel, the big problem with this is you double the number of cycles on your aircraft for no extra revenue.

That’s besides the fact that Dublin fills 330’s on its own merit. So either you are seriously reducing the amount of seats available in Shannon or more worryingly in Dublin. Dublin isn’t sending aircraft to the US with vast amounts of empty seats on it.

trellheim

That’s besides the fact that Dublin fills 330’s on its own merit. So either you are seriously reducing the amount of seats available in Shannon or more worryingly in Dublin. Dublin isn’t sending aircraft to the US with vast amounts of empty seats on it.

Can be solved with pricing the SNN seats appropriately . Like I said the idea is to reduce T2 stand occupation time as it is likely to remain a very scarce resource even with the poor mans solution of the 300 gates and the overflow.


I take the point re cycles. The only other thing I can think of is bussing to the apron near the tower.

NH2013

trellheim wrote: »

Can be solved with pricing the SNN seats appropriately . Like I said the idea is to reduce T2 stand occupation time as it is likely to remain a very scarce resource even with the poor mans solution of the 300 gates and the overflow.


I take the point re cycles. The only other thing I can think of is bussing to the apron near the tower.

With LHR so full it's a wonder BA haven't taken this idea (or similar) on and applied it to say Cardiff Airport, operating all long-haul flights starting at CWL then to LHR before going on to JFK/BOS/ORD etc. to save boarding time/stand occupancy at LHR.

Similar to the issue with the 300 gates you mentioned it would help BA consolidate all their traffic into T5 and avoid having to use the totally separate T3 for some flights, an even worse case as T3 in LHR isn't even connected to T5, unlike the 300 gates which are actually connected to T2 and a shorter walk than walking the length of pier 4.

I wonder why they haven't examined this option of starting all flights at a regional airport like you mention. Unless they have examined it and it's just totally unpractical.

:rolleyes:

trellheim

trellheim wrote: »

Can be solved with pricing the SNN seats appropriately . Like I said the idea is to reduce T2 stand occupation time as it is likely to remain a very scarce resource even with the poor mans solution of the 300 gates and the overflow.


I take the point re cycles. The only other thing I can think of is bussing to the apron near the tower.

It doesn’t solve the problem that Dublin fills a 330 and Shannon I assume fills a 757 but you want to replace that with one 330.

Now if we followed through on your plan. Do you think that Shannon has enough stands and assets to deal with all of Dublin’s TA traffic being routed through there instead ?

trellheim

Do you think that Shannon has enough stands and assets to deal with all of Dublin’s TA traffic being routed through there instead ?

No. of course not. It does not have to, either, initially. Even freeing up 4 330s down to SNN , or even 2, might have a positive impact

Neither am I suggesting pulling the SNN 757s - they remain. Starting at SNN is for maintenance and cleaning NOT primarily for pax - you could run it even as a domestic but in that case it'd need to be cleaned .

I remember a long time ago flying Denver-San Francisco on a UA777 which was massively oversized for our trip but became the San Francisco longhaul overseas to Hawaii or something - you get the idea.

( sub - note : A330 engineers may be easier to obtain in the Mid-West perhaps - just saying )