Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Kermit.de.frog

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

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

We need a significant, well designed new terminal that can be opened in phases to meet all predicted demand. You don't need to open it or finish it all at once.

More and more major airports around the world are already doing this.

This is nothing new.

Kermit.de.frog

lawred2 wrote: »

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

The Irish attitude to most things is 'it'll do'.

That's what we are up against.

That is why everything is too small, disjointed and not built correctly in Ireland. It costs far more in the long run than to just build and plan properly in the first place.

No vision. The airport is a symbol of that confused incoherent approach.

Beechwoodspark

Ok so I’ve made my views known on dublin airport before and the mod told me not to go there.

But to simply say without getting into it there are major problems with the current aviation industry and with the EU stepping up its agenda to address climate change dublin airport will Not be requiring extra space.

They will be closing down areas of the airport before extending it. And rightly so in my view.

Beechwoodspark

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

We need a significant, well designed new terminal that can be opened in phases to meet all predicted demand. You don't need to open it or finish it all at once.

More and more major airports around the world are already doing this.

This is nothing new.

Ireland and dublin does not need a new terminal at dublin airport.

Kermit.de.frog

I completely disagree. Your opinion is ideological and you are entitled to it but it's out of whack with reality.

I think there will be 60 - 70 million passengers using the airport in 30 - 35 years time.

That broadly follows accepted projections.

The new runway (the one well planned thing) will help ensure the future growth.

Beechwoodspark

Any link for that prediction?

LXFlyer

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

We need a significant, well designed new terminal that can be opened in phases to meet all predicted demand. You don't need to open it or finish it all at once.

More and more major airports around the world are already doing this.

This is nothing new.

Funnily enough the DAA airport development plan is phased and sees satellite terminals being developed between the two runways after the addition of two piers in the central area.

Beechwoodspark

For someone to say 60 million are going to be using the airport in 30 years time is complete and utter speculation and it disregards the bigger trends that are coming down the tracks.

Kermit.de.frog

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Any link for that prediction?

It's the regulator and DAA projections. I'll find the PDF.

Regulator is also ALWAYS under estimating passenger growth btw.

Beechwoodspark

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's the regulator and DAA projections. I'll find the PDF.

Regulator is also ALWAYS under estimating passenger growth btw.

They are missing the bigger trends. I wonder have they factored in climate change to their report or, like a lot of industries have they put their fingers in their ears and whistled dixie, hoping that the hockey chart will just go away. It’s not going away.

Beechwoodspark

Daa don’t forget is run as a profit making semi state enterprise.

The Govt have a lot of say in the daa’s future growth and can slow down and even reverse that growth when needs must.

This carry on of let’s spend Monopoly money on dublin airport is fantasy land and I’m fine with that and there’s a time for that too but I would appreciate if ppl acknowledged that.

There will be multiple demands on the exchequer for capital expenditure over the coming 50-100 years.

I suspect The aviation industry will be low down the list of priorities until it innovates.

Indeed the finger of blame/recrimination could be pointing that way when the next generation realizes the state of play.

marcos_94

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

They are missing the bigger trends. I wonder have they factored in climate change to their report or, like a lot of industries have they put their fingers in their ears and whistled dixie, hoping that the hockey chart will just go away. It’s not going away.

While I somewhat tend to agree that they may not be factoring in climate change, do you have any sources for Ireland and a reduction in flights? Dont forget we are an island nation so comparisons to the Netherlands or Denmark are not reasonable

I dont think growth will reach levels predicted currently but there will still be growth

Tenger

This is the aviation and Aircraft forum.
Discussion on carbon emissions, climate change and changes to population lifestyles/trends can go elsewhere.

The point here is that the airport is going to expand/grow. This will happen regardless of future changes to the socio-political environment. You may not like it but its still happening within the next 10 years. The world may well be very different by 2030 but any discussion on such a future can go elsewhere.

Any further anti-aviation posts will result in a forum ban. This is your warning.

Beechwoodspark

I’m not anti aviation. That’s a gross simplification of my position. I would’ve expected more nuance from a mod.

But I can see ppl here only want to hear one thing and that’s let’s spend Monopoly money on outdated models.

sparrowcar

This forum was good when people with actual aviation knowledge or more specifically Dublin airport working life knowledge posted.

The drivel I've read recently seems to have come straight from snippets seen in journal.ie and bored housewives facebook pages.... honestly.

sparrowcar

Runway 16/34 overlay starts in the new year. The runway width will be shortened to meet ICAO standards. Also involves increasing the height at the northern end to match the height of the new northern runway.

Kermit.de.frog

Does anyone know whether the DAA have submitted their request to the new noise regulator (Fingal Co Co) to lift the onerous restrictions that were placed on the operation of the new runway by An Bord Pleanala? Last heard about it in September but nothing since.

L1011

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I completely disagree. Your opinion is ideological and you are entitled to it but it's out of whack with reality.

I think there will be 60 - 70 million passengers using the airport in 30 - 35 years time.

Your dogged insistence that there is a need for a third terminal is ideological and out of whack with reality

Have you ever used Schiphol?

HTCOne

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

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

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

.

Which is one long parallel line of gates in an existing terminal using existing security, baggage, check in etc facilities. The largest you could build a new terminal there without impacting the efficiency of the new runway would be exactly the same size and layout as the pier that is proposed to be added to T1, thus wasting money on separate ancillary infrastructure previously mentioned (fully autonomous baggage systems like those offered by Siemens regularly run into 9 figures for a terminal). A separate terminal at the hangars is a colossal waste of money. When the time comes it needs to go at the western end of the field, in between the runways, with satellites being built moving east as and when required, just like LHR T5, or where ATC, Fire Station, Cityjet etc are with satellites moving west as and when required. That is the most efficient layout for aircraft movements.

Kermit.de.frog

L1011 wrote: »

Your dogged insistence that there is a need for a third terminal is ideological and out of whack with reality

Have you ever used Schiphol?

It's all the same old whataboutery. But this, but that...

Yes, I have used Schiphol on several occasions but I never once thought "this is what we should aspire to at Dublin Airport". In fact I never thought much of it at all.

There is clearly a need for a 3rd terminal to cater for future demand. The DAA say the 2030's.

It needs to be planned for and built now. We will hit 33 million passengers for this year. Next could be up to 35 million. T2 has a design specification for just 15 million passengers.

You are in denial propping up the same antiquated scatter gun approach to development at the airport pretending that random extensions are the way forward for stakeholders most of all passengers.

They say doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. That is what the DAA is doing. It's Aer Rianta all over again.

It's going put €2bn in to bringing capacity to cater for an extra 8 million passengers. This is a scandal for what they are going to get and what they could get.

HTCOne

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's all the same old whataboutery. But this, but that...

It's going put €2bn in to bringing capacity to cater for an extra 8 million passengers. This is a scandal for what they are going to get and what they could get.

That figure is sort of inaccurate. It includes the new runway and taxiways, which are capable of handling a lot more than an extra 8 million. Only parts of that 2 billion are being spent on infrastructure with an 8 million limit, the rest is on infrastructure that will contribute to a much higher capacity.

Kermit.de.frog

HTCOne wrote: »

When the time comes it needs to go at the western end of the field, in between the runways, with satellites being built moving east as and when required, just like LHR T5, or where ATC, Fire Station, Cityjet etc are with satellites moving west as and when required. That is the most efficient layout for aircraft movements.

I don't disagree with the point on aircraft movements but I have a seriously difficult time believing the DAA is going to be in any position to fund the satellite piers they have planned for long term.

There is the issue of the T1 and T2 access points here to consider as well.

For example, how long will it take a passenger to walk from the entrance of T1 (or T2!) to the last gates in that new pier behind the hangars?

How long is it going to take to get a people mover to the new satellite piers from the current set down locations at both terminals?

The experience for passengers ultimately declines one way or another the way things are set up. Bussing will be another issue as well.

That's what happens with this kind of ad hoc development. The logical choice is a whole new terminal facility to the west adequately connected to the transport options at T1 and T2 with people movers or whatever in between.

My point is this is a dogs dinner we are creating again and it does not have to be that way.

jamo2oo9

If a new terminal/satellite is to be built to the west of the airport, a people mover will without a doubt be installed during the construction. They aren't going to go third world and start requiring passengers to be bussed from T1/T2 to the new satellite.

Stephen Strange

shanec1928 wrote: »

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.

Emirates are in a rather unique position in DUB. In that, the early DXB-DUB flight can only go to stand 400C due to it being a third country flight, so if that stand becomes blocked, they're a bit screwed.

cgcsb

An advanced driverless people mover to take you from T3 to T1 where you can walk through the car park to the ditant bus area and wait on the 16 in the cold and rain �� and pay a 7-13 stage fare to an lar but in coins only �� you'll also get a massive dose of attitude from a garden variety bus driver for not knowing this intuitively and god help you if your Eastern Hiberno-English isn't absolutely immaculate.

Tenger

jamo2oo9 wrote: »

If a new terminal/satellite is to be built to the west of the airport, a people mover will without a doubt be installed during the construction. They aren't going to go third world and start requiring passengers to be bussed from T1/T2 to the new satellite.

I applaud your optimism

L1011

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's all the same old whataboutery. But this, but that...

You don't understand what that word means, clearly.


You are just repeating the same stuff you've been shown unable to prove over, and over, and over again.

You do not understand the airport masterplan and have latched on to specific bits of it you think you can discredit in isolation, all to push an ideological desire for a massively multiterminal airport, despite the huge disadvantanges of this being pointed out to you. And then you have the cognitive dissonance to accuse those who understand the masterplan and logistics of ideology!

This isn't the US. We don't build a terminal an airline and optimise for private/hire cars only

Inquitus

Stephen Strange wrote: »

Emirates are in a rather unique position in DUB. In that, the early DXB-DUB flight can only go to stand 400C due to it being a third country flight, so if that stand becomes blocked, they're a bit screwed.

Both the early and the late Dubai flight (7am and 12:55pm ish) occur during US preclearance so both are beholden to the 1 Gate, 400C.

IngazZagni

Inquitus wrote: »

Both the early and the late Dubai flight (7am and 12:55pm ish) occur during US preclearance so both are beholden to the 1 Gate, 400C.

The late one is at 20:50 in winter. The 400c gate is also preferential to airlines like Emirates as it is the closest to the main terminal area and requires the least amount of walking for customers.

Chris_5339762

cgcsb wrote: »

An advanced driverless people mover to take you from T3 to T1

That would worry me actually. The fact that they ever delivered the South Gates into existance would worry me about them doing anything to connect terminal buildings.