Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

IngazZagni

I think that’s nonsense. 3110 metres will be more than enough for Dublin. Planes these days require less and less runway length. 3100 metres would not be enough in Denver, Colorado for example but Dublin doesn’t have that problem.
The new 777X for example requires significantly less runway length than previous generations.

L1011

Elemonator wrote: »

Thanks all.

L1011, any idea when the extended version of the new runway was canned? I actually know a few pilots and one of them is USA routes with Aer Lingus. He told me that the lost 500 metres or so meant that tons of load would be made impossible but that is wasn't a big deal. Showed me the 1960's? plants for Dublin Airport. Two 3500m runways and another one intersecting 16/34 in an X pattern.

Mid to late 80s when 10/28 was being planned. The old runway 23 did intersect 16/34, you can see some remaining bits of it on aerial photos

goingnowhere

MTOW for a A330-300 242 ton, i.e the biggest assuming basic parameters of a calm day, cool temperature, level runway, 0 elevation etc is wait for it a little over 3100m

Dublin will nearly always have a tailwind on the runway and the weather rarely exceeds 25C so its a perfect length for the ops Dublin has.

You would get a rather heavy A380-800 off as well, not MTOW but close

Idbatterim

Here my question. What would adding a few hundred meters cost in the scheme of things ? A pittance I assume. This isn’t Heathrow new runway we are talking about !

L1011

Idbatterim wrote: »

Here my question. What would adding a few hundred meters cost in the scheme of things ? A pittance I assume. This isn’t Heathrow new runway we are talking about !

Between land acquisition costs, road rerouting, planning costs, likely further housing purchase/replacement, construction and so on - Lots. Lots and Lots.

EchoIndia

Donegal Storm wrote: »

Any reason they're not progressing with crossing the existing runway? Would have thought it'd make sense to do it now when things are quietest

I'm not an engineer or a builder or project planner. However I think it's safe to assume that there is a detailed, phased and logical construction plan, taking all relevant factors into account. Runway 16/34 will be out of commission for use as a runway for a period. I think it is towards the summertime. It is in practice used only occasionally nowadays other than during the morning departure peak (and only in the 34 direction).

Captain_Crash

goingnowhere wrote: »

Dublin will nearly always have a tailwind

I'm presuming you mean headwind?

Hotblack Desiato

L1011 wrote: »

Between land acquisition costs, road rerouting, planning costs, likely further housing purchase/replacement, construction and so on - Lots. Lots and Lots.

Didn't they acquire enough land for a 3500m 10L/28R, before Shannon got their oar in? Lots of empty space by the looks of it anyway.

Kermit.de.frog

IngazZagni wrote: »

I think that’s nonsense. 3110 metres will be more than enough for Dublin.

The new runway is 60 meters longer than 05R/23L at Manchester which is their longest runway.

I'm not sure I buy that it's length is going to prevent us getting direct routes to the far east.

Jamie2k9

Remember they never applied for 3,600m. It was looked at again after a certain airline suggested it. However planes have moved on a lot in 14 years.

I also suspect given the planning granted and the conditions going back applying again would have been risky and potentially more restrictions placed on it.

davebuck

There was a 500mts extension planned for the existing 10/28 runway probably around 18 years ago it used to appear in the Aer Rianta timetable on planned future developments.

Currently there are operations off 28 to Hong Kong, and Beijing (some suspended for the winter/some not restarted yet despite slots being reissued), I don’t understand where exactly beyond those that people think Dublin A)will get have trouble operating to with a longer runway and C) people were whinging about never getting these Far East routes off 28 and here we are flying them off 28 and yet people are back whinging about ops off a longer runway, give me strength.

Please people enlighten me ?

Also for note Dublin has had charter flights to Japan. This obsession people have with MTOW is boring, you would swear every flight that happens is at MTOW.

jucylucy

Wouldn’t the extra few meters allow the NEOs to make the east coast with out dumping pax when the weather is against them?

jucylucy

jucylucy wrote: »

Wouldn’t the extra few meters allow the NEOs to make the east coast with out dumping pax when the weather is against them?

Posters issues have always been about distance to destination. They’ve always wanted longer to get to “destinations” in the Far East.

The new runway will apparently solve the new NEO issues but then the XLR will apparently solve the NEO problems with 28.

L1011

jucylucy wrote: »

Wouldn’t the extra few meters allow the NEOs to make the east coast with out dumping pax when the weather is against them?

The new runway is sufficiently longer for this

bikeman1

The Neo's flying to Philadelphia are load restricted for passengers. Something like a max of 120 down the back.

If they did fly to Washington they would be similarly restricted.

Both are on the East Coast. Newark is pretty close to what the limits are from what I have heard.

billie1b

bikeman1 wrote: »

The Neo's flying to Philadelphia are load restricted for passengers. Something like a max of 120 down the back.

If they did fly to Washington they would be similarly restricted.

Both are on the East Coast. Newark is pretty close to what the limits are from what I have heard.

Restricted on cargo too for the east coast, a dispatcher (Red Cap) and an engineering friends of mine were saying that EI want to pull the plug on the rest of the orders due to them being very under performing. Wouldn’t say it’d happen though.

kevinandrew

billie1b wrote: »

Restricted on cargo too for the east coast, a dispatcher (Red Cap) and an engineering friends of mine were saying that EI want to pull the plug on the rest of the orders due to them being very under performing. Wouldn’t say it’d happen though.

If, and it’s a big if, the underperformance is as extensive as rumoured, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the remaining four frames cancelled or converted to XLR’s.

What use to Aer Lingus is another four aircraft that can barely reach Washington?!

Personally, I take the rumours with a pinch of salt but none of the four aircraft due this year have appeared on the production list yet...

jamo2oo9

kevinandrew wrote: »

If, and it’s a big if, the underperformance is as extensive as rumoured, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the remaining four frames cancelled or converted to XLR’s.

What use to Aer Lingus is another four aircraft that can barely reach Washington?!

Personally, I take the rumours with a pinch of salt but none of the four aircraft due this year have appeared on the production list yet...

It's possible EI might have delayed the delivery until the new runway is up and running next year.

NH2013

bikeman1 wrote: »

The Neo's flying to Philadelphia are load restricted for passengers. Something like a max of 120 down the back.

If they did fly to Washington they would be similarly restricted.

Both are on the East Coast. Newark is pretty close to what the limits are from what I have heard.

Newark beyond the limits as well some days, with passengers being offloaded onto the later New York flight as well, has happened a number of times from what I’ve heard, all down to the runway length.

By all accounts even the new runway will only just about allow the 321LR off most days, with some days still having a slight restriction, and likewise with the XLR which should have “similar” performance to the LR, but able to carry an extra 5 tons of load, which means that effectively the new runway is only just about good enough at its current planned length.

All those complaining and saying the new runway is absolutely fine and that newer generation aircraft need less runway are too focused on widebody aircraft and not the next generation of narrow body long haul aircraft, while an A350 might be able to make Tokyo off the new runway, that doesn’t mean an A321LR or A321XLR can make say MSP, or YVR, or DEN or ATL, which will be the real bread and butter routes for EI’s expansion over the next 5-7 years, not widebody routes to the Far East.

Bsal

Once the new runway is up and running the DAA should be thinking of extending RWY28, there is easily an extra 1000m available on the 10 end.

Van.Bosch

billie1b wrote: »

Restricted on cargo too for the east coast, a dispatcher (Red Cap) and an engineering friends of mine were saying that EI want to pull the plug on the rest of the orders due to them being very under performing. Wouldn’t say it’d happen though.

Can I ask a stupid question, how do the pilots/engineers know if it isn’t going to make it? If the Airbus guidance says it can do X and it can’t, how do they know? Get near EWR and realise not enough fuel so have to divert early?

cson

Bsal wrote: »

Once the new runway is up and running the DAA should be thinking of extending RWY28, there is easily an extra 1000m available on the 10 end.

I don't think its quite as simple as paving it up to the boundary road!

Van.Bosch wrote: »

Can I ask a stupid question, how do the pilots/engineers know if it isn’t going to make it? If the Airbus guidance says it can do X and it can’t, how do they know? Get near EWR and realise not enough fuel so have to divert early?

I'd imagine they work off actual performance data vs Airbus brochure data (same way a car manufacturer gives an estimated MPG but "your mileage may vary")

billie1b

Van.Bosch wrote: »

Can I ask a stupid question, how do the pilots/engineers know if it isn’t going to make it? If the Airbus guidance says it can do X and it can’t, how do they know? Get near EWR and realise not enough fuel so have to divert early?

Number of different things, outside air temperature, weather at take off, en route weather, weather at destination, wet/dry runway, pax load, fuel load, cargo load, elevation of airport to name a a few.
So about 24 hours before the flight is due to leave the flight planners will be given estimated loads on pax, bags and cargo, they will then look at the expected weather for the flight and file (most times) the most optimal routing for fuel burn, they then work out how much fuel is required for the flight and add it to all the estimated figures.
On the day of the flight if this figure is higher than the MTOW of the aircraft for the runway and weather etc, the dispatcher and captain will start jiggling about (offloading) pax and cargo to bring the aircraft within its performance limits for the flight, they will very very rarely take less fuel and add a tech stop on the way because there’s enough US flights during the day to re-accommodate pax and cargo onto.

Van.Bosch

billie1b wrote: »

Number of different things, outside air temperature, weather at take off, en route weather, weather at destination, wet/dry runway, pax load, fuel load, cargo load, elevation of airport to name a a few.
So about 24 hours before the flight is due to leave the flight planners will be given estimated loads on pax, bags and cargo, they will then look at the expected weather for the flight and file (most times) the most optimal routing for fuel burn, they then work out how much fuel is required for the flight and add it to all the estimated figures.
On the day of the flight if this figure is higher than the MTOW of the aircraft for the runway and weather etc, the dispatcher and captain will start jiggling about (offloading) pax and cargo to bring the aircraft within its performance limits for the flight, they will very very rarely take less fuel and add a tech stop on the way because there’s enough US flights during the day to re-accommodate pax and cargo onto.

Thanks for the detail. Are you saying they will start by using the Airbus expected figures but then accumulate experience which tells them it isn’t as good as it’s claimed? So then on days were conditions aren’t favourable it actually means pax need to be offloaded.

billie1b

Van.Bosch wrote: »

Thanks for the detail. Are you saying they will start by using the Airbus expected figures but then accumulate experience which tells them it isn’t as good as it’s claimed? So then on days were conditions aren’t favourable it actually means pax need to be offloaded.

The Airbus figures are based from the most optimal conditions, standard weather, no wind, average temperature etc etc, any aircraft, even boeing ones would very rarely meet what the brochures say. I’ll give you a bit of an example, we did a Marrakesh flight the other day, had a tail wind on the way down and did the flight in 2h 50mins, on the return flight we had a head wind, took 4h 15mins to get back, that nearly an extra 4 tonne of fuel alone to do the return journey.

smurfjed

Can I ask a stupid question, how do the pilots/engineers know if it isn’t going to make it? If the Airbus guidance says it can do X and it can’t, how do they know? Get near EWR and realise not enough fuel so have to divert early?

The Airbus figures are based from the most optimal conditions, standard weather, no wind, average temperature etc etc, any aircraft, even boeing ones would very rarely meet what the brochures say

When an airline sits with manufacturers, they will say that they need an aircraft to do route XYZ with a specific payload. It’s in the interest of the manufacturer to provide the required performance guarantee based on average conditions, but if the airline is smart, they will request that guarantee on a monthly basis due to changes in winds (85% probability winds can be used) and runway temperatures, the airline should also provide the actual route rather than a great circle route with required alternate airports, so the guarantee reflects real world requirements.

I did this when my employer was seeking either the A320/B737, we ended up with the A320 with additional fuel tanks for a specific route and we knew that it would fly with 30 empty seats and no cargo, but this was a better solution that the relatively empty B777 that they were replacing.

On the actual day, there are other factors that were never considered in the “performance guarantee” such as the actual runway condition, any new obstacles that may exist since the aircraft was ordered, MEL/CDL items with performance penalties and the worst culprit, the actual wind and the actual destination weather with available alternates. The pilot/dispatcher would know before departure that the aircraft had the fuel to reach the destination or they might use a technique called “re-release” “re-dispatch” (is this permitted in EASA?) to reduce the required fuel reserves.

smurfjed

Does anyone know the aircrafts MTOM and the RTOM for runway 28? How much more more weight will the new runway permit?

HTCOne

Re-release / Re-dispatch is allowed in EASA, US Airways used to do it all the time for their 757 flights to AMS / BRU etc. AA do it too. All by CPDLC / ACARS nowadays.

Nitrogan

cson wrote: »

I don't think its quite as simple as paving it up to the boundary road!