Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Peregrine

18MonthsaSlave, since you seem to be hellbent on ignoring facts and using subjective arguments to explain the 3m passenger difference per annum between 2010 and the end of 2014, I think I'll take a crack at it too.

Most people I know that emigrated went to Canada, US, NZ and Australia. Some went to the UK and I don't know anyone that went to mainland Europe. The people who went to UK might return once or twice a year. The rest, once every 18 months or two years.

They can't possibly explain the 3m extra ppm so there we go. That's my experience so I'm going to claim it as fact. It's official. Anyone that disagrees with me will be ganging up on me because I'm not in agreement with them.



Do you really not see the flaw in that logic?

18MonthsaSlave

Deleted User wrote: »

Pot, kettle

If I'm keeping on topic on thread I'm not moderating. You are the one who wants to hustle this topic off in to another sub-forum.
There are major economic consequences for committing to a large infrastructure project especially when the country is running a deficit and a decision of this size could make or break the country and no I'm not being melodramatic; things are that grim.

18MonthsaSlave

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

There are major economic consequences for committing to a large infrastructure project especially when the country is running a deficit and a decision of this size could make or break the country and no I'm not being melodramatic; things are that grim.

It'll be a semi state getting a loan being paid for through airport charges on a growing customer base. It won't be a state project funded from public coffers and paid for through public taxes.

So a new runway is expected to cost €246.9m

The level of the increase is calculated to be sufficient to allow DAA to spend €246.9m (in July 2014prices) building the runway.

as per http://www.aviationreg.ie/_fileupload/2014final/2014%20Final%20Determination.pdf yet this project is being funded through airport charges and a financial loan from a bank.

Considering the Government has just ordered a 3rd naval vessel at a cost of €54m per vessel a total of €162m funded through the public exchequer taxes and my taxes. http://afloat.ie/port-news/navy/item/25542-an-taoiseach-confirms-%E2%82%AC54m-order-for-third-offshore-patrol-vessel-for-the-naval-service

Which do you consider worse something that will attract and earn money or something that will only ever waste money ?

18MonthsaSlave

Deleted User wrote: »

It'll be a semi state getting a loan being paid for through airport charges on a growing customer base. It won't be a state project funded from public coffers and paid for through public taxes.

So a new runway is expected to cost €246.9m as per http://www.aviationreg.ie/_fileupload/2014final/2014%20Final%20Determination.pdf yet this project is being funded through airport charges and a financial loan from a bank.

Considering the Government has just ordered a 3rd naval vessel at a cost of €54m per vessel a total of €162m funded through the public exchequer taxes and my taxes. http://afloat.ie/port-news/navy/item/25542-an-taoiseach-confirms-%E2%82%AC54m-order-for-third-offshore-patrol-vessel-for-the-naval-service

Which do you consider worse something that will attract and earn money or something that will only ever waste money ?

Naval Vessel is ultra important. A nation state must be able to patrol its borders. Only controversey over the Irish vessels being ordered is that it should have been done when the Country had the money rather than now when the country is broke. I've known about the cost of the vessels for many years and not once have I considered that they shouldn't be purchased.

Anyway back on topic, several days ago CAR produced their final determination on charges for the period 2015-2019, as expected they revised their determination upwards but to save face they are cutting charges by 4.2% p.a. rather than appear to have given in fully to the minister.

http://www.aviationreg.ie/regulation-of-airport-charges-dublin-airport/2014-determination.576.html

Specifically in relation to the runway they say the following

2.10 Regarding suitable runway facilities, we have made an allowance for DAA to recover a sum sufficient to build a runway according to the specification proposed by DAA in its Capital Investment Plan. This comes with the proviso that passenger numbers should have exceeded 25 million in a twelve month period, since the airport already has sufficient runway capacity to handle existing levels of demand. We have also indicated that remuneration of a new runway into the future will depend on DAA addressing the concerns some users have expressed about the possibility of the existing crosswind runway closing. It would not be maximising the use of existing infrastructure to proceed with building a new
runway if the and result is an airport closed to incoming traffic a number of days each year

Page 24-25

18MonthsaSlave

At least you admit that the Regulator gave in to Political pressure from a Minister who has no particular expertise in the area.

"recover a sum" is a loaded word which will probably mean that the main shareholder won't provide capital or forego dividend and instead passengers currently using the airport will pay for the infrastructure that doesn't exist yet but that is me jumping to a conclusion (which probably isn't too remote from how it will pan out in actuality).

2 stroke

Ok I see yous are still argueing this. A few points I'd like to make.
I've never said the runway shouldn't be built, quite honestly I haven't a clue if its needed or not though its been said that the corrent runways not long enough.
I did not say that the increase in trafic was due to emigrants alone, but I pointed that a large part of those figures include multiple trips backwards and forwards between family and friends. The son or daughter coming home as often as they can, the mammy flying out to see them ect. One mammy near me has been in Canada, the States, Australia and China this year to visit her sons and daughters, and she was never on a plane before they emigrated. Thats 8 flights through Dublin, the whole family was home either for Christmas or Paddies day thats another 14 flights, 22 flights in total since christmas due to recent emmigration.
Whot I did say was that calling the increase in passengers as growth, sickens me.

bk

Obviously migration, both emigration and immigration will have an effect on the usage of an airport, but you are very wrong to claim that the majority of the recent increase in passenger numbers is due to emigration, the numbers simply don't support that claim.

Here are Dublin Airports passenger numbers over the past few years:

2001 14,333,555 +3.5
2002 15,084,667 +5.2
2003 15,856,084 +5.1
2004 17,138,373 +8.1
2005 18,450,439 +7.7
2006 21,196,382 +14.9
2007 23,287,438 +9.9
2008 23,466,711 +0.8
2009 20,503,677 -12.6
2010 18,431,064 -10.1
2011 18,740,593 +1.7
2012 19,099,649 +1.9
2013 20,166,783 +5.6

Notice the big increase in passenger numbers during the celtic tiger years. Partly caused by immigration but mostly caused by Irish people travelling on more foreign holidays and for business.

You can see how the passenger numbers growth rate dropped significantly in 2007 to 2008 at the start of the recession and how passenger numbers fell drastically as the recession deepened in 2009 and 2010.

It your idea that passenger numbers increases are mostly emigrants, then why did the passenger numbers fall so dramatically in 2008, 9 and 10? During the worst of the recession?

If you are correct, then surely the figures should show the opposite?

From these figures (and it is supported by some figures from other airports around the world) it is very clear that Airports do well when the economy is doing well and that they suffer during a recession.

I think that migrants effect on airports is overall neutral, when the economy is good you have people immigrating, when it is doing bad, you have people emigrating instead. I expect they more or less balance each other out in terms of airport usage.

What is far more important for the airport and it is reflected in the above numbers, is the health of the economy and if people are staying home to save money or deciding things are a bit better and deciding to spend it on foreign holidays, etc.

BTW I can supply you with a wealth of information that shows the economy is improving drastically.

For instance I can point you to the annual reports of Dublin Bus, Irish Rail, etc. showing significant increases in passenger numbers over the last year.

Or I can point you to the NTA reports showing significant increases in traffic.

Or I can point you to the figures from the Department of Finance and Central bank showing significant GDP growth and falling unemployment rates.

Hell it is obvious here on the ground. Three new housing developments being started within a half of a kilometer of me in the past 2 months!

The reality is the economy has improved significantly and almost every indicator proves it.

Tenger

Hello everyone. Shame I didn't have my phone with me at work today.

Multiple warnings already issued.

This is a thread about the possibility of Dublin getting permission for a new runway.

This NOT a thread about the negative effects of emigration.
Ireland has unfortunately always been a net emigration nation, it is a problem and it does need to be addressed. Our emigrants are still part of our nation and should be seen as such by our political class's (who only like you if you have a vote in their area)

Now the chance of a 2nd runway getting approval is based on passenger numbers through the airport. It reality the airport/regulator does not care where those passengers come from/go to. I would agree with the poster who stated that the stats don't take account of emigration. That is a Govt problem. DAA just want to tick boxes, it is a numbers game.
At present DUB numbers are up, this means a 2nd runway may be approved in the near future. The cost of this construction will be like a mortgage, DAA will get private funding and pay it off over decades. It will not bankrupt the country (unlike the planned Bertie Bowl) The construction may only last 2 years but it will create employment for those 2 years, which may well keep the skilled workers at home until more work happens. After that the 2nd runway will allow growth in the airport which hopefully will mean more jobs at the airport, and then more jobs to service those workers. This is not a glamour project to earn votes for TD's, this is a major upgrade of national infrastructure.

@18monthsaslave: I understand where you are coming from (3 of my siblings are living abroad, and the 3rd of my nephew's left for 2 years in Canada last month,the closest of them all is in Dubai) but this is not the forum to do so in. This is aviation not economics/social policy.

@MYOB: no need to cast aspersions on the poster. They have a valid point of view, just not directly relevant to this topic

18MonthsaSlave

Tenger wrote: »

Now the chance of a 2nd runway getting approval is based on passenger numbers through the airport...it is a numbers game.

It is not a numbers game. It is a political game. If it were a numbers game then the first regulator findings where a runway would be justified at around 32 million passengers, if i remember correctly, would have been published finally. Instead the Minister steps in and the goalposts move.
Capacity of Dublin Airport is at present somewhere between 30 and 35m depending on whose numbers you believe and now because it is a political game the number gets pulled lower allowing the DAA to begin building earlier at the front-loaded expense of the travelling public.

L1011

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

If it were a numbers game then the first regulator findings where a runway would be justified at around 32 million passengers, if i remember correctly, would have been published finally. .

Where was this stated?

The original kick-point for funding was 23.5M and moved to 25M - I have never seen 32M stated anywhere at any point in time.

Razor44

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

the number gets pulled lower allowing the DAA to begin building earlier at the front-loaded expense of the travelling public.

not looking to get into the back and forth here, just a passing point, the smart thing to do to kick start the economy c. 2010/11 would have been to build the new runway (which actually could have been done as job creation drive, even under the EU/IMF) and build Metro north (funding was ring fenced and away for the EU/IMF and there ready for building) but the FG/LAG govt decided against this. So if anything its down to inaction and lack of foresight on the Govts behalf that the Runway will cost more...and the longer it takes the higher the price will go as things pick up. building it early is advantageous

It's funny reading the CAR report and seeing EVERYONE slamming CAR for their methodology used for determining their growth figure. All the airlines and IATA say they have UNDERestimated the number of passengers that will use the airport by 2019. Ryanair even states that CAR are way out using just one factor irish Gdp as how they use come up at the figure. Even at that they are using the wrong figure.

Sure already CAR have had to recalculate the 2014 numbers because the 2015 figure they were using was ACTUALLY the number that used the airport in 2013. They admit they were 900,000 passengers out approx 4% out.

They then say that this year is the last large growth year at 1.4m and every year from now on will only be 600,000-700,000 extra per year ! Hence by 2019 Dublin will magically only have 24.8m passengers and NOT hit the trigger for the parallel. Talk about massaging the figures to suit your needs.

18MonthsaSlave

MYOB wrote: »

Where was this stated?

The original kick-point for funding was 23.5M and moved to 25M - I have never seen 32M stated anywhere at any point in time.

I can't find it so probably misremembered and withdraw the comment.
Capacity is stated to be 32m passengers on https://www.eurocontrol.int/airport_corner_public/EIDW and 35m on http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/dublinint/
I can't find it in the draft so I must have misremembered.

L1011

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

I can't find it so probably misremembered and withdraw the comment.
Capacity is stated to be 32m passengers on https://www.eurocontrol.int/airport_corner_public/EIDW and 35m on http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/dublinint/
I can't find it in the draft so I must have misremembered.

Those are for the terminal facilities (although I suspect they're calculating based on the era when we had 23M in Terminal 1 alone - albeit with prefab gates, checkin desks in the basement and the carpark, etc, etc). Development there has outstripped that of the airfield.

I actually used to drive to Waterford - similar door-to-aicraft-door time due to the M50 and N4 traffic and roadworks at the time, albeit terrible roads then; checkin times and the twenty second walk from the long-term carpark - if I was flying to Birmingham or London rather than deal with the horrors of Dublin as it really was a hellhole.

IRLConor

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

I can't find it so probably misremembered and withdraw the comment.
Capacity is stated to be 32m passengers on https://www.eurocontrol.int/airport_corner_public/EIDW and 35m on http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/dublinint/
I can't find it in the draft so I must have misremembered.

They're terminal capacities, not realistic whole-airport capacities.

I'm sure you could pump that number of people via the current runway setup if you had a perfect spread of arrival/departure times and the right blend of aircraft.

The problem is that you can't just change the timing of flights. People need to make connections in Dublin or in other airports which means that there needs to be a pile of arrivals and departures in the morning. Then there's the business day-tripper flights which need to go in and out in the evening. It's packed pretty tight in the mornings, hence the ersatz dual runway operations with 28 and 34.

Irish Steve

There is another issue that's not been mentioned, which is that there are significantly more wide body aircraft now operating in and out of Dublin, which causes issues with vortex wake separation, both on arrivals and on departures, especially when the following aircraft is small, such as an ATR, of which there are now more than there used to be. The result of that one change is a reduction in the overall number of flights that can be operated in a given period of time. A second parallel runway will remove many of those pressures.

There are also 2 other issues which have been mentioned previously, one is that the length of 10/28 is limiting for some operations,. especially long haul cargo, and the other is that before too much more time goes by, significant repairs/upgrades will be required to 10/28 to keep it operational for all weights and sizes of aircraft.

On that basis, it would seem prudent to be bringing 28R forward, not regardless of passenger numbers, but with the anticipated growth in mind, in order to ensure that the growth is not stifled by lack of capacity. I too can remember the hell that was Terminal 1 a while back, and getting through it was no fun at all, things have improved since those days, but be under no illusions, there are already some capacity issues even with T2, especially for Trans Atlantic pre inspection, and with wide body stand space at T2, and it's not going to get better, more long haul wide body flights WILL cause problems at T2, and that issue is also going to have to be addressed, moving aircraft to remote parking is only a short term solution,

There is also the issue of public transport access to the airport, Metro North will be needed at some stage to reduce the problems of congestion, especially given the problems with the present structure of the departure road at T1, which is desperately in need of significant change. Again, 2 things there would help, the first being to separate the walking passengers from the car park area from the traffic on the road, and the other thing that would help considerably would be to change the lane layout to have the parking lanes on either side of the centre lane, which would become the through lane, so vehicles dropping off would go either left or right from the centre lane, and that would have 2 advantages, all vehicles setting down would have access to a safe walkway on one side, and there would no longer be problems with trying to get through a line of parked vehicles to get to the inner lane as at present. Another possible assistance would be to have a facility at one or other of the long term car parks to allow for drop off or collections via the bus service that serves the long term parking,

DAA face some significant challenges, and the board being "stuffed" with political appointees doesn't help, for DAA to become the success that it needs to be, the people running it and making the critical decisions need to have real aviation experience, and real commercial experience, which too many of the past appointees have not had, DAA was for a long time the reward given for services provided, that culture is no longer appropriate to the requirements of the main commercial airport of the country.

Tenger

Thank you, Irish Steve for bringing us back (with the expected lengthy but well worth the read post) to the matter at hand.

18MonthsaSlave

Ryanair have plenty of willing Airports for their planes.
They can reduce passenger traffic through Dublin to avoid triggering the new runway and it would come down to being a cold hard business decision for them.
They are so flexible that they wouldn't even have to stop basing the planes out of Dublin and just fly off in the morning and not return until shift for crew ends.
or thrice weekly flights become bi-weekly and so on and so forth.

1st: can they do it? Yes they can.
2nd: would they do it? They'd sell their own granny so yes again.
3rd: Who could stop them? No-one in a position to force them or seize the opportunities for flying out of Dublin which they vacate.

18MonthsaSlave

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

Ryanair have plenty of willing Airports for their planes.
They can reduce passenger traffic through Dublin to avoid triggering the new runway and it would come down to being a cold hard business decision for them.
They are so flexible that they wouldn't even have to stop basing the planes out of Dublin and just fly off in the morning and not return until shift for crew ends.
or thrice weekly flights become bi-weekly and so on and so forth.

1st: can they do it? Yes they can.
2nd: would they do it? They'd sell their own granny so yes again.
3rd: Who could stop them? No-one in a position to force them or seize the opportunities for flying out of Dublin which they vacate.

WHAT ?

18MonthsaSlave

my understanding is that runway can't be built until passenger numbers increase. isn't this still the case?

lord lucan

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

my understanding is that runway can't be built until passenger numbers increase. isn't this still the case?

It is the case but why would FR cut off their nose to spite their face. It's not like Dublin is a sentimental base for them,it's a successful base and even FR wouldn't cut routes to spite the daa.

man98

Ryanair is all about profit, which their Dublin base makes. I don't know the figures, but I presume it's their 2nd or 3rd biggest systemwide base? It makes little sense to cut flights massively. And let me get this clear, your plan to reduce capacity issues is to get Ryanair to leave? Why not force every airline in DUB to fly A380s? Since they can fly 4x more people than the B738 or A320, we'll get so much less flights!

18MonthsaSlave

Ryanair don't want to have to explain to investors why their profits dropped permanently one quarter just because Dublin airport usage passed a particular threshold.
If they see the threshold will be passed they'll switch some routes to keep under the threashold.

Tenger

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

Ryanair have plenty of willing Airports for their planes.
They can reduce passenger traffic through Dublin to avoid triggering the new runway and it would come down to being a cold hard business decision for them.......

1st: can they do it? Yes they can.
2nd: would they do it? They'd sell their own granny so yes again.
3rd: Who could stop them? No-one in a position to force them or seize the opportunities for flying out of Dublin which they vacate.

Why on Earth would FR reduce their traffic out of DUB just to annoy the DAA and prevent a 2nd runway getting approval?
-More pax = more profit for FR.
-2 runways mean less congestion at DUB = less delays for FR.

L1011

Other airlines can and will take over profitable routes vacated out of spite.

DUB is less reliant on FR than nearly any other airport they have as a base - it has another dominant airline and most of Europe's flag carriers for starters.

Strumms

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

Ryanair don't want to have to explain to investors why their profits dropped permanently one quarter just because Dublin airport usage passed a particular threshold.
If they see the threshold will be passed they'll switch some routes to keep under the threashold.

That is a ridiculous concept. How about explaining to the shareholders how their load factors have gone down massively ex-DUB due to pulling and reorganising routes. You really have no clue.

18MonthsaSlave

Strumms wrote: »

That is a ridiculous concept. How about explaining to the shareholders how their load factors have gone down massively ex-DUB due to pulling and reorganising routes. You really have no clue.

They've got plenty of other airports crying out for passengers and happy to let them land for next to nothing and still keep their load factors up.
A manager in Ryanair will be faced with this problem some time soon; do they let the numbers of passengers in Dublin pass a threshold and their passenger charges go up for every single passenger or do they divert a plane to another route.
Don't shoot the messenger.

L1011

As other carriers will grow it over the threshold eventually regardless, your scenario will translate to FR slowly withdrawing from the market completely. Which won't happen.

man98

So tell us all, what aviation expertise do you have?
And they ignored this threshold for T2 to be built, even though they're against it.