Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

MICKEYG

Idbatterim wrote: »

Why don’t they make more money on parking and the hotel they have planned for years then etc. stuff that’s actually in their control ...

Why not build a multistorey car park at entrance to red car park and link it to the terminal with a driverless monorail ?

How would they pay for this? If they have the funds (or can raise them) for these projects the same funds would be available for the other airfield projects they have listed which are higher in priority for their business.

rivegauche

IE 222 wrote: »

I'd rather my €1.50 go to the DAA than Aer Lingus or Ryanair. This saving won't be passed onto passengers and even if it was it's only going to cost us more in the long term.

You do realise that many other great airlines operate from the airport than just EI and FR?
If the cost of doing business can be kept low thanks to low airport charges then even more airlines will choose to operate routes through the airport. It is up to the airlines to decide if they pass on the savings to passengers but as long as the routes are served Dublin benefits. Some may pass on the savings, some may not.

Dublin/Ireland is offering a great package to airlines at the moment. No APD tax and low airport charges and the results are there to be seen - great connectivity to the outside world.
If more infrastructure is needed then it can be financed with low interest credit paid for by the new additional passengers and planes who use the airport.

I'm personally hoping for more carriers like Loganair, FlyBE and Stobart to flesh out the offering from Dublin.

IE 222

rivegauche wrote: »

You do realise that many other great airlines operate from the airport than just EI and FR?
If the cost of doing business can be kept low thanks to low airport charges then even more airlines will choose to operate routes through the airport. It is up to the airlines to decide if they pass on the savings to passengers but as long as the routes are served Dublin benefits. Some may pass on the savings, some may not.

Dublin/Ireland is offering a great package to airlines at the moment. No APD tax and low airport charges and the results are there to be seen - great connectivity to the outside world.
If more infrastructure is needed then it can be financed with low interest credit paid for by the new additional passengers and planes who use the airport.

I'm personally hoping for more carriers like Loganair, FlyBE and Stobart to flesh out the offering from Dublin.

I don't think Dublin could do with a massive influx in demand right now. I agree keeping the charge low to bring in new traffic is wise but the timing in this case is backwards.

You need the infrastructure in place first and the current infrastructure plans were based on receiving them charges. Did the DAA not already scale back on some of the purposed new taxi ways due to a lack of funds. This reduction is likely to see them scale back further or defer future projects.

Personally I'd rather pay a little extra now to get the work completed ASAP and fully in one go and receive a meaningful reduction in charges when the work is finished.

Blut2

IE 222 wrote: »

I don't think Dublin could do with a massive influx in demand right now. I agree keeping the charge low to bring in new traffic is wise but the timing in this case is backwards.

You need the infrastructure in place first and the current infrastructure plans were based on receiving them charges. Did the DAA not already scale back on some of the purposed new taxi ways due to a lack of funds. This reduction is likely to see them scale back further or defer future projects.

Personally I'd rather pay a little extra now to get the work completed ASAP and fully in one go and receive a meaningful reduction in charges when the work is finished.

This is the core of the problem. Dublin airport at present is suffering from having too rapid passenger growth (ie, demand), and too little infrastructure to handle it. Anyone with a basic grasp of economics would see that the solution to this is to raise charges so demand levels off, and use the raised charges to improve the infrastructure. Then, once the infrastructural capacity has expanded you can lower the charges to attract more traffic.


But lowering the charges, when the airport is already bursting at the seams, and when its already struggling to fund infrastructure improvements, is just insanity. It doesn't make any sense, on any level.

BigMoose

I'm currently sitting on EI 146 waiting for a gate... We were told that the airport is full and it'll be around half an hour for a stand to free up which is really not what you want after a 10 hour flight!

trellheim

perfectly feasible to remote park and bus pax to the terminal but they cannot be bothered to do so. sure its only self loading cargo.

BigMoose

trellheim wrote: »

perfectly feasible to remote park and bus pax to the terminal but they cannot be bothered to do so. sure its only self loading cargo.

I've been sitting here wondering why they don't do just that. It's not good enough to just be stuck here. Other airports manage with remote stands and busses. While remote gates suck, they suck a lot less than being stuck on this bloody plane!

Landed at 11:25, get to a gate at 12:20...

IngazZagni

And we have CAR reducing fees to airlines making it much more difficult to build additional gates. The airlines will then pocket more money only to end up spending more on fuel with aircraft waiting for stands. It’s beyond a joke.

Jamie2k9

BigMoose wrote: »

I've been sitting here wondering why they don't do just that. It's not good enough to just be stuck here. Other airports manage with remote stands and busses. While remote gates suck, they suck a lot less than being stuck on this bloody plane!

Landed at 11:25, get to a gate at 12:20...

daa offer generous discounts for busing off long haul flights. EI don’t do it because of transit customers plus it wouldn’t be viewed well generally.

BigMoose

BigMoose wrote: »

I've been sitting here wondering why they don't do just that. It's not good enough to just be stuck here. Other airports manage with remote stands and busses. While remote gates suck, they suck a lot less than being stuck on this bloody plane!

Landed at 11:25, get to a gate at 12:20...

You landed 30 mins early so technically you only got to the gate 25 mins late. As to remote parking, you can blame the airline for that. You are probably the only person on that flight that would be happy getting off on a remote stand and then getting on a bus for a 15-20 minute bus trip back to terminal 2 after a 10 hour flight.

Stephen Strange

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

daa offer generous discounts for busing off long haul flights. EI don’t do it because of transit customers plus it wouldn’t be viewed well generally.

Yet they land EWR and IAD flights and park at 300s with transit pax, then bus them!!

trellheim

You are probably the only person on that flight that would be happy getting off on a remote stand and then getting on a bus for a 15-20 minute bus trip back to terminal 2 after a 10 hour flight

Very much doubt that. After landing off a West coast inbound personally all I want to do is get off the darn thing and everyone else I've ever talked to is the same. It is not as if EI Ops didnt know a couple of hours in advance the 146 would be early and have the buses ready to go as soon as chocks on at the remote stand rather than faffing around and likely blocking a taxiway. Its down to not being bothered rather than being unable. Those sacred transit passengers just want to get off and stretch out and as pointed out above, they get their own little bus anyway.

sparrowcar

trellheim wrote: »

Very much doubt that. After landing off a West coast inbound personally all I want to do is get off the darn thing and everyone else I've ever talked to is the same. It is not as if EI Ops didnt know a couple of hours in advance the 146 would be early and have the buses ready to go as soon as chocks on at the remote stand rather than faffing around and likely blocking a taxiway. Its down to not being bothered rather than being unable. Those sacred transit passengers just want to get off and stretch out and as pointed out above, they get their own little bus anyway.

You're suggesting that EI Ops should have activated their standby bus fleet and drivers for your flight? Have you any idea how an airport operates.. don't answer that.

Noxegon

sparrowcar wrote: »

You're suggesting that EI Ops should have activated their standby bus fleet and drivers for your flight? Have you any idea how an airport operates.. don't answer that.

Actually, I don't think the poster is being unreasonable here.

There should be staff ready to meet any long haul arrival when it lands. Keeping people waiting on board for an hour after landing is completely unacceptable.

How the airline achieves that is entirely up to the airline.

Strumms

Noxegon wrote: »

Actually, I don't think the poster is being unreasonable here.

There should be staff ready to meet any long haul arrival when it lands. Keeping people waiting on board for an hour after landing is completely unacceptable.

How the airline achieves that is entirely up to the airline.

Yes there needs to be a contingency plan in that situation. It could mean spending their dosh getting sky handling or Swissport on the job but as an airline I’d rather spend a measly couple of hundred Euros extra doing that, keeping customers happy, reputation of care and quality intact over either penny pinching, not being that bothered or both...

jesus_thats_gre

sparrowcar wrote: »

You're suggesting that EI Ops should have activated their standby bus fleet and drivers for your flight? Have you any idea how an airport operates.. don't answer that.

Said every industry that needed to change up.

There isn't an excuse when information is available many hours in advance.

LXFlyer

Noxegon wrote: »

Actually, I don't think the poster is being unreasonable here.

There should be staff ready to meet any long haul arrival when it lands. Keeping people waiting on board for an hour after landing is completely unacceptable.

How the airline achieves that is entirely up to the airline.

Arriving early isn’t helping though.

Strumms

LXFlyer wrote: »

Arriving early isn’t helping though.

Definitely not but....It’s going to be known hours in advance based on information available to the operations guys what the eta of the flight will be.. when this is known they need to get organized so that 300 plus people are not fûcking sat somewhere on a remote stand in Dublin for an hour or more. Passengers are THE priority.

They may need to txt around looking for staff to come in a bit earlier. Four or five guys can get people off and things moving. Ok passengers might have a colossal wait for bags but at least they can do it in comfort, space and warmth of a terminal.

markpb

Strumms wrote: »

Ok passengers might have a colossal wait for bags but at least they can do it in comfort, space and warmth of a terminal.

I know you’re not talking about Dublin’s baggage carousel room!

sparrowcar

You're missing my point here and apologies for the semi smart reply.

Coaches are at an absolute premium in Dublin airport. Sky and Swiss don't have coaches on standby to facilitate an adhoc remote wide body. They can barely cover their own demands and the bussing piers. EI, Ryanair and the DAA don't own any coaches.

The issue here is much more complex than blaming any one particular company or airline.

Kermit.de.frog

According to Dalton Phillips

“This determination is a disaster for passengers, and for the Irish economy, as we won’t be able to pay for the new and improved facilities that are required at Dublin Airport. It is meaningless for the Regulator to claim that it supports investments in new facilities while at the same time failing to provide the money needed to build them.”

His argument is that when DAA approach the banks for money the most recent event they are going to talk about is effectively a 20% cut in income from passengers.

It's a very valid one.

The airport failed to invest during and after the crash. Now the same mistake is set to be repeated by the sounds of it.

Other than the new runway and some taxiways there is no significant passenger facilities underway right now. This is going to lead to overcrowding, an increasingly poor experience for passengers and possibly the airport having to turn away business or airlines making that decision themselves on the basis that the infrastructure is not there.

L1011

They built T2 during the crash...

Kermit.de.frog

Not true. Finance was in place and construction started just prior to the crash.

L1011

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Not true. Finance was in place and construction started just prior to the crash.

And they defied calls to cancel it from all the people we're repeatedly told on here know what they're doing

Kermit.de.frog

L1011 wrote: »

And they defied calls to cancel it from all the people we're repeatedly told on here know what they're doing

No reason to cancel - the finance was already put in place.

Fast forward a year in looking for that finance they would have scrapped it.

We only have what we have through luck really that it started when it did.

Now what the DAA is saying is they won't have the ability to put finance in place due to this decision.

It's very worrying that no expansion of facilities is underway even now (except airfield works). It's mind boggling actually looking at the passenger numbers. We are heading for the type of crunch we had just prior to T2 opening in Terminal 1 because nothing is happening.

IE 222

Blut2 wrote: »

This is the core of the problem. Dublin airport at present is suffering from having too rapid passenger growth (ie, demand), and too little infrastructure to handle it. Anyone with a basic grasp of economics would see that the solution to this is to raise charges so demand levels off, and use the raised charges to improve the infrastructure. Then, once the infrastructural capacity has expanded you can lower the charges to attract more traffic.


But lowering the charges, when the airport is already bursting at the seams, and when its already struggling to fund infrastructure improvements, is just insanity. It doesn't make any sense, on any level.

I wasn't saying otherwise. I totally agree but it seem the regulator doesn't understand this concept.

trellheim

sparrowcar wrote: »

You're missing my point here and apologies for the semi smart reply.

Coaches are at an absolute premium in Dublin airport. Sky and Swiss don't have coaches on standby to facilitate an adhoc remote wide body. They can barely cover their own demands and the bussing piers. EI, Ryanair and the DAA don't own any coaches.

The issue here is much more complex than blaming any one particular company or airline.

This is a reasonable point. BUT

its not adhoc - ops would have known hours in advance
its offpeak
it happens regularly
were there no 300 gates ( or the T2 extension gates) available for example a narrowbody could have been bused to free the 300 gate up
Ryanair have just bought buses if I recall ( for example ).
Nothing is stopping EI buying buses in

Strumms

sparrowcar wrote: »

You're missing my point here and apologies for the semi smart reply.

Coaches are at an absolute premium in Dublin airport. Sky and Swiss don't have coaches on standby to facilitate an adhoc remote wide body. They can barely cover their own demands and the bussing piers. EI, Ryanair and the DAA don't own any coaches.

The issue here is much more complex than blaming any one particular company or airline.

The airline want contact stand availability regardless of the early arrivals, to facilitate their passengers who just want to get home to bed probably 12+ hours after leaving their hotels...dealing with airport stress and all the rest..

The DAA don’t have that facility but neither do they have a plan B, such as what to do when an aircraft does arrive early because of say a strong tailwind across the Atlantic. The only solution is maybe have a widebody contact stand free in case of this eventually... the airline ops people when aware of the early arrival which they should be WELL in advance need ground handlers available for marshaling, FOD check of stand and surrounding area, placement of GSE, checks of GSE etc.... can they get people that’s a big issue too.. I wouldn’t know

IE 222

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

According to Dalton Phillips

Other than the new runway and some taxiways there is no significant passenger facilities underway right now. This is going to lead to overcrowding, an increasingly poor experience for passengers and possibly the airport having to turn away business or airlines making that decision themselves on the basis that the infrastructure is not there.

New runway and taxi ways will get planes on and off stands quicker which will free up stands. They need the runway in place before adding more stands. What's the point in adding another 30 stands if nobody can move on the airfield.

So Aer Lingus know they will arrive 30 mins early 3-4+ hours in advance. Everything at that point looks rosy, the stand plan is working. The previous occupant of the stand is due out 25 mins before the inbound arrives. But just before it pushes it develops a snag, a passenger faints, the load sheets are wrong, it picks up a late slot due to weather at its destination, the tug breaks down etc etc etc.

These are the day to day issues that happen constantly at a major international airport. It never ceases to amaze me how people always think and believe that for every eventuality or situation there should be a spare stand, bus, tug, etc just sitting waiting. It never ceases to amaze me how people who are international travellers always think that this JUST happens in Dublin. The LAX, SFO and SEA flights arrive at peak heavy departure movements time.

Imagine rocking up to a busy popular restaurant at peak time on a busy day 30-40 mins before your reservation and telling them you want your table or to make another available right now, reasonable ?