Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

no.8

no.8 wrote: »

I disagree...and I don't even live anywhere near Dublin airport.
There's always the spin... 'given the current environment'. Reality is there has probably been no other time in our states history where the country has been a wealthy. There will always be poverty etc. But that does not mean we shouldn't advocate improvements.

I've spent a lot of time in and around a large airport in central Europe where the facilities provided for safe and enjoyable spotting facilities has spawned numerous successful businesses. Not to mention inspire the next generation of aerospace / operations fanatics and talent.

But let's not invest or progress, no, because someone might slip.

I’m glad someone mentioned the nonsense “current climate”. So FCC can’t afford 20-30k for some much needed works. I’ll ask the question, which is cheaper the few thousand for upgrades or the multiple of that when someone falls and hurts themselves on the back of car park mound or coming down off it.

My understanding is these works are going ahead with new steps, railings and resurfaced parking. How is that a bad thing ?

Nijmegen

Deleted User wrote: »

I’m glad someone mentioned the nonsense “current climate”. So FCC can’t afford 20-30k for some much needed works. I’ll ask the question, which is cheaper the few thousand for upgrades or the multiple of that when someone falls and hurts themselves on the back of car park mound or coming down off it.

My understanding is these works are going ahead with new steps, railings and resurfaced parking. How is that a bad thing ?

There is this theory that government can only do one, or perhaps two, things at once. FCC (and other councils) spend plenty of money on parks and recreation facilities and cultural events whilst also trying to solve homelessness, improve the environment and suchlike. A project like this would be no different except for its high profile location and likelihood to attract the misery guts who complain at almost anything a government spends its money on that's not either solving their special issue or giving them a tax cut.

HTCOne

Hey if the facilities are improved, ie made safer, and a nice little viewing deck is put in the I think a € or 2 per hour to use it is perfectly reasonable. Although the heavies will likely want 28R/10L when that opens so the viewing area that side will likely be the more in demand one.

Bebop

I have given up bringing my kids there, quite apart from the dangerous mound, the road itself has become a hazard with traffic passing at high speeds while cars maneuver in and out, the back road along the main runway is also a high speed drag strip..park there at your own risk, putting in a safer facility would cost little compared with the overall cost of the new runway and associated road works

Nijmegen

There is a local election coming up in June next year, mightn't be a bad time for people to ask for it.

Tenger

basill wrote: »

When the ole London fog comes into LHR the controllers see jack squat - same as the pilots. LVPs are in force. They use ground movement radar and when you have decelerated down to a safe taxi speed you generally get a helpful radio call from tower advising that the exit is x metres coming up on your left/right and to follow the greens to stand xxx. Greens refers to the ground lighting system that is coded individually for each aircraft taking you to your stand. Also used in night time operations.

Thats pretty cool. I didnt know that individual coding system was in place,

Negative_G

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I’m glad someone mentioned the nonsense “current climate”. So FCC can’t afford 20-30k for some much needed works. I’ll ask the question, which is cheaper the few thousand for upgrades or the multiple of that when someone falls and hurts themselves on the back of car park mound or coming down off it.

My understanding is these works are going ahead with new steps, railings and resurfaced parking. How is that a bad thing ?

I didnt say it is a bad thing. What I said was I could think of plenty of projects more worthy of investment than indulging a fairly small spectrum of hobbyists.

Let's get real, a tarmacadam layby adjacent to the airport isnt going to "inspire" the next generation. That's the type of stuff you hear on Joe Duffy. I never spent one iota of my life in that area and managed to secure myself a fairly okay job in the aviation industry, mostly due to the fact that I went to college more than anything else.

For anyone who is familiar with trying to get projects over the line with local authorities, for communicaties, not just those who blow in for an hour or two here and there, you are obviously not aware of the budgetry constraints of local authorities for even the smallest thing.

Why are they "much needed" exactly? Pretty sure FCC still pick up all the rubbish thats left behind from some of those who frequent that particular area.

FCC doesn't owe "spotters" anything.

EchoIndia

Negative_G wrote: »

The local authority is under no explicit obligation to provide any sort of infrastructure or renovation to facilitate a very small group of people.

When some ambulance chaser does 'slip' and files a claim thatll be the end of that.

There are literally hundreds of more important projects for FCC to focus their attention on.

I understand that it's important for you, and others, but I struggle to think of something less worthy of funding given the current climate.

I didn't say it was important for me but I have observed the situation there. As far as I am aware (and as another poster has already mentioned) there is a stated plan to improve the area. I am not familiar with the details. If the area had to be dug up for pipe-laying anyway, it would have to be either reinstated afterwards or the lay-by removed altogether. It may well be regarded as wiser from a road safety point of view to provide a pull-in area rather than risk drivers stopping elsewhere along a very busy road. I am happy to trust that, on balance, the local authority engineers know their jobs better than I do.

Negative_G

Nijmegen wrote: »

There is this theory that government can only do one, or perhaps two, things at once. FCC (and other councils) spend plenty of money on parks and recreation facilities and cultural events whilst also trying to solve homelessness, improve the environment and suchlike.

Parks and other "recreational facilities" provide a far more useful return amd utility to taxpayers than what you are suggesting. The utility and benefit of something like this is absolutely miniscule in comparison.

Negative_G

EchoIndia wrote: »

I didn't say it was important for me but I have observed the situation there. As far as I am aware (and as another poster has already mentioned) there is a stated plan to improve the area. I am not familiar with the details. If the area had to be dug up for pipe-laying anyway, it would have to be either reinstated afterwards or the lay-by removed altogether. It may well be regarded as wiser from a road safety point of view to provide a pull-in area rather than risk drivers stopping elsewhere along a very busy road. I am happy to trust that, on balance, the local authority engineers know their jobs better than I do.

Thats fair enough.

I would be interested to know has anyone made representations to FCC or local TDs regarding it.

Again, I can see more merit to address the current situation due to road safety than simply providing an all weather elevated stand for people to watch and take photographs.

Horses for courses.

Nijmegen

Negative_G wrote: »

Parks and other "recreational facilities" provide a far more useful return amd utility to taxpayers than what you are suggesting. The utility and benefit of something like this is absolutely miniscule in comparison.

Taxes fund a lot of things, mainstream and widely used as well as niche. Indeed, providing for niche interests is as vital to ensuring all of society is bought in as big parks. Councils regularly spend money supporting artistic works that only a select group see or care about, for example.

As for the amount of people this would benefit, ever since I’ve been a kid driving past the airport there have been an appreciable amount of spotters at Dublin airport. I couldn’t tell you what the total population size is, but I could comment that when you regularly see groups of people engaging in a hobbyist activity over and over and over for years it’s likely worthy of some consideration for modest public investment.

Gael23

Someone is going to get killed on the mound before long. If you slip off the slope coming bpdown down you are straight into the path of a truck and it’s end of story.

markpb

Gael23 wrote: »

Someone is going to get killed on the mound before long. If you slip off the slope coming down down you are straight into the path of a truck and it’s end of story.

Can we tone down the hyperbole just a tiny bit? With one small exception, it's almost 15m from the bottom of the mound to the road (Link). You'd need an awful lot of momentum to roll that distance! It's not an ideal facility but it's not as bad as some people are making out.

markpb

markpb wrote: »

Can we tone down the hyperbole just a tiny bit? With one small exception, it's almost 15m from the bottom of the mound to the road (Link). You'd need an awful lot of momentum to roll that distance! It's not an ideal facility but it's not as bad as some people are making out.

That one small exception being were the majority of people climb up and down from the mound. The rest of the area yes the road isn’t the problem but more than impact with a solid object or the ground which will do the damage.

I get your point but some element of work needs to be done to mitigate any potential to cause injury.

basill

Lets have some perspective. If we dumb down the world for the lowest common denominator then there would be no Darwin Awards.

Gael23

Is there not already 2 runways?

goingnowhere

Yes there are but they cannot be used at the same time apart from a very limited dual departure role

And 16/34 is even shorter, but it is wider and thus in a 50-50 situation where the crosswind is the same on both runways 16/34 is preferred by some as there is more tarmac to land on

roadmaster

When the second runway is up and running the owners of the boot inn should look to develop a roof terrace for food/coffee as you would have a good view of the two runways, city jet and the coastguard. It could potentially be a good money spinner for them only problem is you could have lads taking 3 hrs to drink a coffee!

Tenger

Gael23 wrote: »

Is there not already 2 runways?

As above, yes.
This new runway would allow be parallel to the current main runway, thus allowing both to be used at the same time. This would increase airport capacity by doubling the potential number of take off/landings in an hour.
A lot of work however is still needed to ensure that the stands and taxiways could support such an increase.
Building the runway is only half the job.

medoc

New piers to be built. Are there plans for these on the north and south side of the airport or are they still to be planned?

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/major-expansion-planned-for-dublin-airport-1.3621033?mode=amp

LXFlyer

The actual interview explains it best:

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/interview-flying-higher-with-daa-1.3620683?mode=amp

blackwhite

medoc wrote: »

New piers to be built. Are there plans for these on the north and south side of the airport or are they still to be planned?

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/major-expansion-planned-for-dublin-airport-1.3621033?mode=amp

Both North and South. They say €500m south and €400m north in the article

Jamie2k9

The northern side was discussed a few pages back, the T2 pier was always planned but clearly they have brought it forward, so perhaps the south gates 5 year actually means 5 years? T2 should have had such plans in progress before now.

Very shrewd move doing it via borrowing and not increasing charges.

Jamie2k9

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Very shrewd move doing it via borrowing and not increasing charges.

Im nearly certain doing it via borrowing also removes CAR from the objection equation as it will be taken from revenue to pay the loan and not a charge back to the airlines and customers directly.

rivegauche

If it means that planes can park up at terminals rather than dumping poor passengers at that remote boarding shed then I'm all for this although it is obviously as strategically defensive move against Terminal 3.

Rojomur

A map that Philips rolls out on his office conference table shows the route to the new northern gates running behind existing hangars to an unused area that can seen from the airport’s exit road. A second block of boarding gates, accessed by bus, will sit across an aircraft parking area from this. On the southern side, a new pier with gates will extend down into an existing cargo area that will be moved to a new zone of its own.

Thats from the times article...where exactly is he talking about here...is it an extension of the " "Ryanair pier" and will it mean that existing hangers will be demolished?

plodder

rivegauche wrote: »

If it means that planes can park up at terminals rather than dumping poor passengers at that remote boarding shed then I'm all for this although it is obviously as strategically defensive move against Terminal 3.

I used that recently, and it was fine going out, but returning late on a Sunday evening, it didn't feel great to walk from the aircraft, in one door of "the shed" and straight back out another one to a bus. I say "it didn't feel great" which it didn't, and one German passenger was a bit incredulous about it, but it actually didn't take very long. It took no more than 20 minutes from plane to exiting the terminal on that occasion.

Nevertheless, perception of wasted time is important and people were (not unreasonably) asking why can't the buses just collect the passengers directly from the aircraft?

Locker10a

plodder wrote: »

rivegauche wrote: »

If it means that planes can park up at terminals rather than dumping poor passengers at that remote boarding shed then I'm all for this although it is obviously as strategically defensive move against Terminal 3.

I used that recently, and it was fine going out, but returning late on a Sunday evening, it didn't feel great to walk from the aircraft, in one door of "the shed" and straight back out another one to a bus. I say "it didn't feel great" which it didn't, and one German passenger was a bit incredulous about it, but it actually didn't take very long. It took no more than 20 minutes from plane to exiting the terminal on that occasion.

Nevertheless, perception of wasted time is important and people were (not unreasonably) asking why can't the buses just collect the passengers directly from the aircraft?

Yeah that is odd, because during the day there are turnaround flights there so arriving passengers would have to be taken directly from the aircraft as the outbound ones would surly already be in the shed ready for boarding?

Idbatterim

It will likely handle forty million or close to it before any of this work is completed. Without nearly a billion, a billion euro being spent!

Idbatterim

Idbatterim wrote: »

It will likely handle forty million or close to it before any of this work is completed. Without nearly a billion, a billion euro being spent!

What’s your point ?