Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

EI321

McEvaddys don't own much of the land shown in the proposal. The DAA own some of it.

And no details of how the terminal will be connected.

Kermit.de.frog

awec wrote: »

I don't have an indo account so can't read the full article.

Accounts on independent.ie are free by the way (except for the opinion pieces as far as I know).

lawred2

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

No need for another terminal

based on what?

L1011

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If you disagree then disagree but you should avoid making personal attacks.

You may want to listen to your own advice there.

Your initial post today was reported and is 100% deserving of a sanction for attacking the poster rather than the post - and is indeed an attack based on completely misinterpreting the post to begin with - but I'm giving you this as a warning instead.

Continue to post like that and there will be sanctions.

Kermit.de.frog

lawred2 wrote: »

based on what?

The DAA should spend the €2bn they are planning to spend on a new terminal.

Instead, we are going to do what we always do in Ireland and what the old Aer Rianta use to do and blow the money on inferior dogs dinner extensions that will bring minimal increase in capacity and make the experience worse for passengers.

Alone the walking distance is going to shoot up again between the piers.

That same amount of money would buy a decent small enough terminal that could handle 3 times the number of passengers as the planned extensions.

I see it as a huge waste of money for what they are looking to get.

L1011

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That same amount of money would buy a decent terminal that could handle 3 times the number of passengers as the planned extensions.

Provide your sums here. Including all costs of providing transit provisions, current and future (additional Metrolink construction costs and so on)

Kermit.de.frog

L1011 wrote: »

Provide your sums here. Including all costs of providing transit provisions, current and future (additional Metrolink construction costs and so on)

It would go where the hangars are currently located on the northern side of the campus.

Expense would be minimal in terms of public transport provision. Metro could serve all 3 terminals with no redesign (i'd like underground pedestrian links to each terminal)

It is obscene waste of money to build a whole new pier behind the old hangers when they could just as easily have an actual terminal connected to the internal road network there.

Also think of the walk all the way from T1 to the end of that pier.

It makes little practical sense.

L1011

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It would go where the hangars are currently located on the northern side of the campus.

Expense would be minimal in terms of public transport provision. Metro could serve all 3 terminals with no redesign (i'd like underground pedestrian links to each terminal)

It is obscene waste of money to build a whole new pier behind the old hangers when they could just as easily have an actual terminal connected to the internal road network there.

Also think of the walk all the way from T1 to the end of that pier.

It makes little practical sense.

You haven't provided any figures. You are proposing very significant additional costs over a pier without any indication of where the savings are to cover them.

What advantage does a separate terminal provide versus a pier, precisely? Remember that the two terminals we have currently are effectively one terminal with disparate baggage handling systems.

Providing a closer car drop off point is not an 'advantage' worth anything when the airport needs to massively reduce the number of private car trips.

Kermit.de.frog

L1011 wrote: »

You haven't provided any figures. You are proposing very significant additional costs over a pier without any indication of where the savings are to cover them.

What very significant extra costs?

You provide the set down roads and that's literally about it for transport provision. The buses can stop there as well on the way out as can taxis.

You get more circulation space for passengers than exists at the current set down areas in T1 and T2.

It would not have to be a big terminal either.

My argument is they will get greater return this way than what they are looking to do with ad hoc extensions that will only bring capacity to just 40 million p/a.

That is not justifiable for €2bn.

L1011

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What very significant extra costs?

* Full new baggage handling system (not just an extension of existing)
* Complete new security hall (not just extension)
* Complete new immigration (not just extension)
* Duplication of basic services landside and core airside

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It would not have to be a big terminal either.

Making the justification for it even weaker. Cost of providing a full discrete set of everything for low usage makes the cost per user much higher. This is why regional airports have high cost bases compared to larger ones.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

My argument is they will get greater return this way than what they are looking to do with ad hoc extensions that will only bring capacity to just 40 million p/a.

That is not justifiable for €2bn.

Your argument is based on limited to no knowledge of the actual costs and an inability to actually provide any numbers. It is so flawed that you cannot make a judgement from it.


You are so sure of costs and advantages in your posts, yet cannot provide either.

Kermit.de.frog

L1011 wrote: »

* Full new baggage handling system (not just an extension of existing)
* Complete new security hall (not just extension)
* Complete new immigration (not just extension)
* Duplication of basic services landside and core airside



Making the justification for it even weaker. Cost of providing a full discrete set of everything for low usage makes the cost per user much higher. This is why regional airports have high cost bases compared to larger ones.



Your argument is based on limited to no knowledge of the actual costs and an inability to actually provide any numbers. It is so flawed that you cannot make a judgement from it.


You are so sure of costs and advantages in your posts, yet cannot provide either.

Provide me your numbers then on both plans. The costs you mention are capital costs which would be in the capital budget for it so i'm not sure I get the argument against. Of course there are operational costs. There will be operational costs with the dogs dinner approach as well.

Ryanair have been through this with the DAA already btw and fully supported the plan at the hangars i'm talking about as making the most sense.

Of course I don't have the actual numbers.

Spending €2bn to stand still is not the right way to go about this. I know that for sure.

L1011

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Provide me your numbers then on both plans. The costs you mention are capital costs which would be in the capital budget for it so i'm not sure I get the argument against.

Ryanair have been through this with the DAA already btw and fully supported the plan at the hangars i'm talking about as making the most sense.

Of course I don't have the actual numbers.

Spending €2bn to stand still is not the right way to go about this. I know that for sure.

You can't provide figures - you're not getting me to do your homework.

You are proposing spending an undefined figure, that you can't provide, to get the same result with no extra benefits (and multiple negatives).

Building a new pier is not "stand still" - you can't just try use soundbites because you think they sound good.

You can't get away with dropping ill/misinformed statements here as fact, something it would do you well to realise.

Kermit.de.frog

L1011 wrote: »

You can't provide figures - you're not getting me to do your homework.

You are proposing spending an undefined figure, that you can't provide, to get the same result with no extra benefits (and multiple negatives).

Building a new pier is not "stand still" - you can't just try use soundbites because you think they sound good.

Ok let me explain blunty to you how ABSURD the DAA's plan is.

The new pier 5 they want to build jutting east of T2.

For those 5 extra stands they have to demolish and move the entirety of the cargo service area there.

They have to put the whole lot on the other side of the Swords rd. For this they have to build a whole new underpass to connect the whole new cargo site to the airport airside.

How much sense does that make to you for 5 extra stands?

This is Children's Hospital style waste of money. How anyone can stand over this and say "yeah that makes sense" is beyond me.

How can you stand over that - for 5 extra stands!?

L1011

You are looking at that in isolation of the rest of the plan. You cannot pull segments out of it and actually expect it to work.

Airfield layout changes are required to reduce conflicts. This is part of that. Capacity is constrained without that.

This an actually properly planned infrastructure plan that you are attacking because you want some elements of it to *seem* bigger, nothing else

Kermit.de.frog

L1011 wrote: »

You are looking at that in isolation of the rest of the plan. You cannot pull segments out of it and actually expect it to work.

Airfield layout changes are required to reduce conflicts. This is part of that. Capacity is constrained without that.

This an actually properly planned infrastructure plan that you are attacking because you want some elements of it to *seem* bigger, nothing else

The cargo area is being demolished and rebuilt for 5 extra stands.

Defend if you wish.

L1011

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The cargo area is being demolished and rebuilt for 5 extra stands.

Defend if you wish.

I just did, and you completely ignored it.

NH2013

Is it not 5 widebody stands or 10 narrowbody stands? Effectively increasing the capacity of the preclearence stands by 50% over pier 4 alone? Expansion that is required if Aer Lingus is to add 4 A321LRs and 7 A321XLRs over the next 4 years predominantly on routes to the USA requiring preclearance?

Seems like very sensible expansion targeted at exactly where it's required.

L1011

NH2013 wrote: »

Is it not 5 widebody stands or 10 narrowbody stands? Effectively increasing the capacity of the preclearence stands by 50% over pier 4 alone? Expansion that is required if Aer Lingus is to add 4 A321LRs and 7 A321XLRs over the next 4 years predominantly on routes to the USA requiring preclearance?

Seems like very sensible expansion targeted at exactly where it's required.

Its net 4 WB /8 NB I believe due to loss of one WB stand to provide access to it

It also cleans up some of the airfield layout and will provide a more coherent cargo facility with better access to the Airport Logistics Park etc, and more capacity for growth - which the current one doesn't have.

Its not just "knocking the cargo facility for gates" basically; its about providing facilities required now and in the future for the whole airport. T2 was built with spare capacity in the main airside hall (upstairs above retail units) to cope with additional piers being built.

Inquitus

Emirates has issues with the fact there is only one non US Pre-clearance stand in terminal 2, going so far to stay it is impacting their service and any possibility of expanding.

https://fora.ie/emirates-dublin-airport-infrastructural-negative-4744690-Jul2019/

IngazZagni

Inquitus wrote: »

Emirates has issues with the fact there is only one non US Pre-clearance stand in terminal 2, going so far to stay it is impacting their service and any possibility of expanding.

https://fora.ie/emirates-dublin-airport-infrastructural-negative-4744690-Jul2019/

That’s a misleading statement. Only 1 wide body non pre clearance stand at the peak times. Still space over in 300 gates. This capacity is interchangeable. If more flights from the east come on stream then they can add a wide body gate at T2 at peak times.
Of course they need that extension built ASAP along with the new runway. I’d always take what Emirates say with a pinch of salt. They’re a bit mouthy just like Ryanair.

Jack1985

Emirates carries on like its got the divine right to input into the decision making process of the authority. They operate two daily services,

American operates up to four daily services during peak season.
Delta operates three daily services during peak season.
United operates three daily services during peak season.

I've yet to read an article about the capacity strains affecting their businesses. Enda Corneille is ex-EI, and he seems to think he's running a massive operation at DUB with that gob of his.

Jack1985

Jack1985 wrote: »

Emirates carries on like its got the divine right to input into the decision making process of the authority. They operate two daily services,

American operates up to four daily services during peak season.
Delta operates three daily services during peak season.
United operates three daily services during peak season.

I've yet to read an article about the capacity strains affecting their businesses. Enda Corneille is ex-EI, and he seems to think he's running a massive operation at DUB with that gob of his.

Well said.

The way they go on is a joke. If Emirates left Dublin tomorrow lots of other airlines would start or up capacity. If Emirates want a seat at the table and to be listened to then maybe they might want to start increasing their flights first. What are they bring in and out per day 1600 passengers or so ? 4 movements out 800 during a busy summers day or 4 out of 400 on the quietest winters day.

HTCOne

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The DAA should spend the €2bn they are planning to spend on a new terminal.

Instead, we are going to do what we always do in Ireland and what the old Aer Rianta use to do and blow the money on inferior dogs dinner extensions that will bring minimal increase in capacity and make the experience worse for passengers.

Alone the walking distance is going to shoot up again between the piers.

That same amount of money would buy a decent small enough terminal that could handle 3 times the number of passengers as the planned extensions.

I see it as a huge waste of money for what they are looking to get.

The LEAST efficient place to build terminal 3 is where the hangars are. Once the new runway opens, the biggest constraints on capacity in peak times will be a)shortage of gates, and b) cul de sacs.

Taking b first, the most efficient layout is the “toast rack” design, ie satellites fixed between parallel runways. Planes land and taxi in from one side and park, push back and taxi out the other side to the other runway to depart, with the satellites far enough apart so aircraft can push back to back simultaneously.

The current Dublin layout has bottlenecks where arrivals must wait for departures to taxi out of the gate area before arrivals can enter or vice versa, meaning departures are sat on their gates even though they are fully ready to depart, and gates ar sat waiting for their arrivals who are stuck on a taxiway elsewhere waiting for the departures to clear the bottleneck before they can access their gate, which is incredibly wasteful.

A terminal where the hangars are now would have exactly the same problem T2 currently has, namely being too close to a runway, reducing the efficiency of that runway by causing traffic jams on proximate taxiways, have inefficient bottlenecks, and have a limited potential footprint due the proximate runway. It would be a colossal waste of money. T2 was built in the wrong place for very short sighted reasons (the same ones you espouse) because people from outside aviation ground operations were put in charge of it, your proposed T3 would be even more foolhardy.

L1011 is on the money re scaleability affecting baggage systems etc, the bigger you can make the terminal with new piers etc, the better the economies of scale and the greater the efficiency.

Idbatterim

Having read an article about the rip off tender prices daa receive, I’m delighted they can’t just jack up the charges. This is the same crowd that can’t even get a golden goose hotel built on their own land !

sparrowcar

Idbatterim wrote: »

Having read an article about the rip off tender prices daa receive, I’m delighted they can’t just jack up the charges. This is the same crowd that can’t even get a golden goose hotel built on their own land !

Have you a link to that article?

L1011

sparrowcar wrote: »

Have you a link to that article?

A denied claim by an external agency:

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/daa-must-challenge-irish-firms-for-more-competitive-tenders-38779632.html

shanec1928

IngazZagni wrote: »

That’s a misleading statement. Only 1 wide body non pre clearance stand at the peak times. Still space over in 300 gates. This capacity is interchangeable. If more flights from the east come on stream then they can add a wide body gate at T2 at peak times.
Of course they need that extension built ASAP along with the new runway. I’d always take what Emirates say with a pinch of salt. They’re a bit mouthy just like Ryanair.

They have a point took 2 emirates flights to Dublin in the last few months and both times we’ve sat 20+ minutes on the apron waiting to park the plane because of no free stands.

Kermit.de.frog

HTCOne wrote: »

The LEAST efficient place to build terminal 3 is where the hangars are. Once the new runway opens, the biggest constraints on capacity in peak times will be a)shortage of gates, and b) cul de sacs.

Taking b first, the most efficient layout is the “toast rack” design, ie satellites fixed between parallel runways. Planes land and taxi in from one side and park, push back and taxi out the other side to the other runway to depart, with the satellites far enough apart so aircraft can push back to back simultaneously.

The current Dublin layout has bottlenecks where arrivals must wait for departures to taxi out of the gate area before arrivals can enter or vice versa, meaning departures are sat on their gates even though they are fully ready to depart, and gates ar sat waiting for their arrivals who are stuck on a taxiway elsewhere waiting for the departures to clear the bottleneck before they can access their gate, which is incredibly wasteful.

A terminal where the hangars are now would have exactly the same problem T2 currently has, namely being too close to a runway, reducing the efficiency of that runway by causing traffic jams on proximate taxiways, have inefficient bottlenecks, and have a limited potential footprint due the proximate runway. It would be a colossal waste of money. T2 was built in the wrong place for very short sighted reasons (the same ones you espouse) because people from outside aviation ground operations were put in charge of it, your proposed T3 would be even more foolhardy.

L1011 is on the money re scaleability affecting baggage systems etc, the bigger you can make the terminal with new piers etc, the better the economies of scale and the greater the efficiency.

Agree completely on the location of T2. The new Pier D at the time was also demolished for T2. Another waste of money.

Lessons are not being learned.

You argue against a 3rd terminal at the hangars yet DAA are going to build a pier behind them. So the same problems you describe will be there anyway airside.

We should build a brand new terminal that can be completed and opened in phases to meet demand as needed.

Instead we keep going with mickey mouse expensive extensions that mean we are always building to stand still and never ahead of the demand curve.

By the time DAA blows it's 2bn for 40 million passengers the airport will be struggling to handle more passenger.

We have no long term vision for the airport except keep tacking bits on here and there.

Defending this is defending the second rate nature at how we do all infrastructure in Ireland. It's not good enough and we need to demand better standards and financial efficiency.

Beechwoodspark

They don’t need any new terminals. This whole thing is an exercise in hubris.

lawred2

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

They don’t need any new terminals. This whole thing is an exercise in hubris.

Is terminal 1 not a bit of an aging kip? How much more life is in that? Surely a terminal is going to be inevitably needed to replace that anyway..