Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Options
1…2728303233…293

Comments

  • Options
    #872
    18MonthsaSlave
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 574 ✭✭✭18MonthsaSlave


    IRLConor wrote: »
    Also most passengers aren't travelling that full distance.
    Most travelling out of that pier are travelling that distance or almost that distance. The pier is 200m long so on average they are travelling only 100m less and that pier is being used by the 2nd busiest airline at the airport and based on current growth soon to be the busiest airline at the airport.


  • Options
    #873
    billie1b
    Registered Users Posts: 3,813 ✭✭✭billie1b


    Already the busiest airline in the airport


  • Options
    #874
    18MonthsaSlave
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 574 ✭✭✭18MonthsaSlave


    Since when? Last figures I saw they were still a few hundred thousand behind?


  • Options
    #875
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users Posts: 10,716 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    billie1b wrote: »
    Already the busiest airline in the airport

    Aer Lingus + Regional are the busiest carrier in terms of capacity, FR are close behind.


  • Options
    #876
    billie1b
    Registered Users Posts: 3,813 ✭✭✭billie1b


    18MonthsaSlave wrote: »
    Since when? Last figures I saw they were still a few hundred thousand behind?

    Last figures I read FR were ahead, there was even mention of it on one of the forums here


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #877
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    18MonthsaSlave wrote: »
    Most travelling out of that pier are travelling that distance or almost that distance. The pier is 200m long so on average they are travelling only 100m less and that pier is being used by the 2nd busiest airline at the airport and based on current growth soon to be the busiest airline at the airport.

    I'm curious actually. Where would you have put the 1xx gates? (Bearing in mind that when those gates were added you couldn't really demolish anything that was already there because it was in heavy use.)

    The only other real option would be to build a completely separate terminal over where T3 will probably be. That would have been better, but there's no way that Ryanair would have agreed to fund it. Pretty much all the other airlines support connections/interlining so none of them would want to move to a disconnected terminal so Ryanair would have had to be the ones to move.

    Or are you one of the "T2 should have been a hyper-dense shed with no retail, lounges or amenities" advocates?


  • Options
    #878
    18MonthsaSlave
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 574 ✭✭✭18MonthsaSlave


    leading question


  • Options
    #879
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    18MonthsaSlave wrote: »
    leading question

    By which you mean "yes"? :)

    Even if you removed all of the nicer parts of T2 you wouldn't fit many more aircraft in, so it's a moot point.


  • Options
    #880
    Avada
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,411 ✭✭✭Avada


    IRLConor wrote: »
    It's hard to see how you'd fit more gates in anywhere closer to T1 security though. Given the space they had to work in they could have done a lot worse.

    The only way you could do it would be by extending Pier B, using the B1 and B2 plans that were posted in this thread already I think, and the extension to Pier A. Both need to be done anyway imo.


  • Options
    #881
    Chris_5339762
    Registered Users Posts: 5,902 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    One problem is that the bridge that goes over to the 100 gates is curved, so they couldn't put travellators on it. It should have been straight.

    That said, all throughout Dublin airport, there are far too few travellators, especially arriving at the 100 gates, theres hardly any and they are only token ones.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #882
    davebuck
    Registered Users Posts: 250 ✭✭davebuck


    Is the proposed runway been moved further north to keep the cross runway 13/34?


  • Options
    #883
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Chris_5339762 wrote: »
    One problem is that the bridge that goes over to the 100 gates is curved, so they couldn't put travellators on it. It should have been straight.

    That said, all throughout Dublin airport, there are far too few travellators, especially arriving at the 100 gates, theres hardly any and they are only token ones.
    It couldn't be straight due to the old control tower/terminal building which is a listed building
    davebuck wrote: »
    Is the proposed runway been moved further north to keep the cross runway 13/34?

    It's 16/34, and no it's so ATC can have full simultaneous independent parallel runway operations if needed, ie use both runways for landing and taking off on both at the same time, that doesn't necessarily mean the DAA will replan to do this, they may accept the current situation is easier to get planning on and live with its max capacity as one for landing and one for taking off set up.


  • Options
    #884
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,657 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Chris_5339762 wrote: »
    One problem is that the bridge that goes over to the 100 gates is curved, so they couldn't put travellators on it.

    Not true - a curved travellator might cost more, but it's certainly possible to build.


  • Options
    #885
    davebuck
    Registered Users Posts: 250 ✭✭davebuck


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It couldn't be straight due to the old control tower/terminal building which is a listed building


    It's 16/34, and no it's so ATC can have full simultaneous independent parallel runway operations if needed, ie use both runways for landing and taking off on both at the same time, that doesn't necessarily mean the DAA will replan to do this, they may accept the current situation is easier to get planning on and live with its max capacity as one for landing and one for taking off set up.

    That makes sense now any ideas of numbers per hour of the 2 options 1. existing planning permission and 2. runway moved north to allow simultaneous operations on both runways?


  • Options
    #886
    jamo2oo9
    Registered Users Posts: 5,780 ✭✭✭jamo2oo9


    Why do they need to push it further north for simultaneous landings? SFO have runways paired up right beside each other and yet they can operate simultaneous landings. Is it just an IAA restriction or something alike?


  • Options
    #887
    ozzy jr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,519 ✭✭✭ozzy jr


    Are the proposed plans available online anywhere?


  • Options
    #888
    davebuck
    Registered Users Posts: 250 ✭✭davebuck


    The DAA are due to update their master plan for Dublin airport but there's nothing yet on the website anyone know any different?


  • Options
    #889
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    davebuck wrote: »
    That makes sense now any ideas of numbers per hour of the 2 options 1. existing planning permission and 2. runway moved north to allow simultaneous operations on both runways?

    It's not easy to say to be honest but fully independent should give a bonus 10-20 movements per hour at peak time.


  • Options
    #890
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    jamo2oo9 wrote: »
    Why do they need to push it further north for simultaneous landings? SFO have runways paired up right beside each other and yet they can operate simultaneous landings. Is it just an IAA restriction or something alike?

    SFO will have one locked on an ILS approach and other flying an approach parallel but visual with other traffic whereas Dublin would not have the weather to facilitate this and would need to be able to keep IFR separation between the two aircraft.

    It's an ICAO thing there is a multitude of different types of parallel operation and this is the best option.

    When SFOs weather is not good enough it can't use the parallel system as you describe and it's delays go through the roof as a result. The FAA bends the rules to get a high Movement rate and when weather doesn't work for them it destroys the airports as a result. It's one of the reason O'hare is getting rid of the cross runway system and going with 4-5 parallel runways, they just can't accept the disruption and delays any more and the only way out is the European system.


  • Options
    #891
    Newbie1000
    Registered Users Posts: 12 ✭Newbie1000


    Deleted User wrote: »
    SFO will have one locked on an ILS approach and other flying an approach parallel but visual with other traffic whereas Dublin would not have the weather to facilitate this and would need to be able to keep IFR separation between the two aircraft.

    It's an ICAO thing there is a multitude of different types of parallel operation and this is the best option.

    When SFOs weather is not good enough it can't use the parallel system as you describe and it's delays go through the roof as a result. The FAA bends the rules to get a high Movement rate and when weather doesn't work for them it destroys the airports as a result. It's one of the reason O'hare is getting rid of the cross runway system and going with 4-5 parallel runways, they just can't accept the disruption and delays any more and the only way out is the European system.

    Funny you would think with the Bay areas fog it would be a frequent problem although not sure if SFO is that often impacted.

    How much further north does the runway have to go?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #892
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Newbie1000 wrote: »
    Funny you would think with the Bay areas fog it would be a frequent problem although not sure if SFO is that often impacted.

    How much further north does the runway have to go?

    Not sure off the top of my head, I did look it up before and I think I posted distances required earlier in the topic. Sorry you might have to search the topic.


  • Options
    #893
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Regarding the A380 stand:
    http://documents.fingalcoco.ie/NorthgatePublicDocs/00501428.pdf
    http://documents.fingalcoco.ie/NorthgatePublicDocs/00501401.pdf

    It's at the end of Pier E.


  • Options
    #894
    TheFitz13
    Registered Users Posts: 696 ✭✭✭TheFitz13


    Peregrine wrote: »
    Regarding the A380 stand:
    http://documents.fingalcoco.ie/NorthgatePublicDocs/00501428.pdf
    http://documents.fingalcoco.ie/NorthgatePublicDocs/00501401.pdf

    It's at the end of Pier E.

    How long would it take them to do this?


  • Options
    #895
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users Posts: 10,716 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    TheFitz13 wrote: »
    How long would it take them to do this?

    Shouldn't take to long however they wont be able to start until winter schedules at the earliest.


  • Options
    #896
    TheFitz13
    Registered Users Posts: 696 ✭✭✭TheFitz13


    Jamie2k9 wrote: »
    Shouldn't take to long however they wont be able to start until winter schedules at the earliest.

    Any idea how long it will take for planning permission to be granted?


  • Options
    #897
    pclive
    Registered Users Posts: 453 ✭✭pclive


    Looks like the DAA are letting Fingal know they see the work to the airbridge etc as exempted development so its not really applying for planning permission as such. Its up to Fingal now to decide if this work is exempt from planning or not.

    Thats how I read it but open to correction


  • Options
    #898
    Ren2k7
    Registered Users Posts: 1,161 ✭✭✭Ren2k7


    Jamie2k9 wrote: »
    Shouldn't take to long however they wont be able to start until winter schedules at the earliest.

    I could just imagine it being a case where the planning permission takes longer than the actual construction phase. Only in Ireland. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #899
    EchoIndia
    Registered Users Posts: 2,991 ✭✭✭EchoIndia


    Ren2k7 wrote: »
    I could just imagine it being a case where the planning permission takes longer than the actual construction phase. Only in Ireland. :rolleyes:

    For a lot of modest-scale building projects (e.g. domestic extensions) this can be the case. I doubt that is unique to Ireland.


  • Options
    #900
    STEVE35
    Registered Users Posts: 39 ✭STEVE35


    Certainly reads that they are not looking for planning permission as the structure is mobile. Appears the DAA are just waiting for confirmation from Fingal CC that they can proceed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #901
    davepatr07
    Registered Users Posts: 303 ✭✭davepatr07


    Sorry if this has been asked or mentioned before but can't find it anywhere.

    What is the plan for Dublin's existing 28/10 runway apart from the proposed new 28R/10L parallel runway? Will 28/10 get an extension or will they leave it as it is at 8,652ft or so?

    Am I right in hearing that 16/34 will be removed from operations? Shame if they do.


    Thanks


Advertisement