Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Dardania

MoeJay wrote: »

Having suffered this myself I'm no great fan but the works are scheduled to end prior to the scheduled arrival time of the eastbound flights...they can't organise it to take consideration of winds aloft each night!

What is worse is the 45 min delays that can occur due to the bottleneck of the queue for departure on 28 in the early mornings and the flights trying to get into T2...

In relation to the case for retaining 16/34, in the event of winds that render 28 not an option, the only other southerly runways (of similar length) on the island are 17 in Cork and 17 in Aldergrove. Cork is limited to the number of aircraft it could handle in the event of multiple diversions, Belfast less so, but if 16 in Dublin wasn't an option suddenly capacity is an issue. Then we have the inevitable length of time to recover the operation. Then we'd have the thread about why we didn't keep 16 open when we had the chance!

I've heard of planes inbound to Dublin getting weather diverted to Manchester.

The smart move is to maintain 16/34 - plenty of scope for expansion yet without compromising it from looking at those site plans

Bigcheeze

Dardania wrote: »

I've heard of planes inbound to Dublin getting weather diverted to Manchester.

The smart move is to maintain 16/34 - plenty of scope for expansion yet without compromising it from looking at those site plans

Is the smart option not to build parallel south westerly runways instead of parallel WbN runways.

When the winter gales come they tend to be south west which is a 45 degrees x wind on 28

Deatr

Judging by the layout in the Capital Expenditure Program it appears that it's just going to create more cul-de-sacs! Have they not learnt anything? Operating in and out of DUB at the moment is a joke especially during the first wave of departures in the morning. I'm just happy that we can use 34 when conditions allow.

Keeping 16/34 is essential as part of the future development of the airport especially given the stormy nature of the past couple of winters!

Jamie2k9

Deatr wrote: »

Judging by the layout in the Capital Expenditure Program it appears that it's just going to create more cul-de-sacs! Have they not learnt anything? Operating in and out of DUB at the moment is a joke especially during the first wave of departures in the morning. I'm just happy that we can use 34 when conditions allow.

Keeping 16/34 is essential as part of the future development of the airport especially given the stormy nature of the past couple of winters!

It's the runway location and access which is the real problem rather than cul-de-sacs.

Improved taxiway system is what's needed but can't happen until a second runway is operational.

Cul-dec-sacs are very normal globally but runway locations are much better unlike DUB.

16/34 add's to the problems as well.

Deatr

Deatr wrote: »

Judging by the layout in the Capital Expenditure Program it appears that it's just going to create more cul-de-sacs! Have they not learnt anything? Operating in and out of DUB at the moment is a joke especially during the first wave of departures in the morning. I'm just happy that we can use 34 when conditions allow.

Keeping 16/34 is essential as part of the future development of the airport especially given the stormy nature of the past couple of winters!

Each cul de sac will be serviced by dual taxiways, they have learned one lesson.

Bussywussy

few widebody stands wouldn't go astray.

Bussywussy

Bussywussy wrote: »

few widebody stands wouldn't go astray.

Extension to T2 will be for 10-15 narrow bodies and therefore the main pier will be widebody only hopefully

Deatr

You're right about runway access alright, but surely that could have been seen when they were planning T2 in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong, which I probably am, but from what I understand the airlines weren't consulted in any way in relation to the positioning of T2 and access to the runway.

While cul de sacs have been the norm in the past where they've lacked is with single taxi ways. As GVHOT at least there finally seen the light with dual taxiways into the cul de sacs.

Jamie2k9

Deatr wrote: »

You're right about runway access alright, but surely that could have been seen when they were planning T2 in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong, which I probably am, but from what I understand the airlines weren't consulted in any way in relation to the positioning of T2 and access to the runway.

While cul de sacs have been the norm in the past where they've lacked is with single taxi ways. As GVHOT at least there finally seen the light with dual taxiways into the cul de sacs.

I agree but we would still have issues anyway, remember RY2 would of been open many years by now which adds more.

Deatr

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

I agree but we would still have issues anyway, remember RY2 would of been open many years by now which adds more.

True! Construction of which should have started during the recession in order to position DUB better.

The airport as whole is just very badly laid out. While the experience for the flying public may be fine once through security, at certain times of the day for crews operating it can be 'challenging' and that's apart from when the weather is bad!

crisco10

I know it's the Sindo, but I ca't help but think if all things develop as described in article it would seriously overload the airport?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/colm-mccarthy/aer-lingus-the-real-winner-from-any-ryanair-interlining-deal-31454216.html

Balf

crisco10 wrote: »

I know it's the Sindo, but I ca't help but think if all things develop as described in article it would seriously overload the airport?

Can I suggest another way of considering the issue?

I know it's the Sindo, but I ca't help but think if all things develop as described in article it would make further development of the airport a no-brainer?

crisco10

Balf wrote: »

Can I suggest another way of considering the issue?

I know it's the Sindo, but I ca't help but think if all things develop as described in article it would make further development of the airport a no-brainer?

True, and I that's what I was getting at also. From the conversations above though, space is limited if not awkward in Dublin? I'm no expert so maybe most, or all, of these can be overcome with money and forward planning.


PS: not sure I get the joke of you copying and pasting (typos and all) my post. ah well.

Balf

crisco10 wrote: »

True, and I that's what I was getting at also. From the conversations above though, space is limited if not awkward in Dublin? I'm no expert so maybe most, or all, of these can be overcome with money and forward planning.

I think you are completely right - there will be a problem if increasing demand is responded to piecemeal.

crisco10 wrote: »

PS: not sure I get the joke of you copying and pasting (typos and all) my post. ah well.

Apologies if I caused offence, I wasn't casting asparagus!

Tenger

crisco10 wrote: »

I know it's the Sindo, but I ca't help but think if all things develop as described in article it would seriously overload the airport?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/colm-mccarthy/aer-lingus-the-real-winner-from-any-ryanair-interlining-deal-31454216.html

While that article has a good point re FR feeding into IAG flight ex-DUB, it is a little simplistic and presumptious in some points.
Yes FR aircraft are larger than EI (174 vs 189) but that doesn't take into account the O&D nature of FR traffic and the time it will take to change this.
In addition I dont see how IAG will be happy with EI cutting ties with JetBlue, this connection doesn't directly compete with AA and so far is providing good feed into the EI network. (I can see the United codeshare being dropped in a heartbeat as IAG wasnt EI to join the BA/AA T/A agreement)
As for new routes, I could see EI taking over the DUB-PHL route from AA. (Was previously a US Airways route,but they are no more, which the writer seems to miss)

MoeJay

Do we really believe that FR would be happy to take on all costs and responsibilities associated with ensuring passengers make connections...?

While they may be happy to take on the punters I'm not sure they want the responsibility...and that is where their plan might not catch on..

IRLConor

MoeJay wrote: »

Do we really believe that FR would be happy to take on all costs and responsibilities associated with ensuring passengers make connections...?

While they may be happy to take on the punters I'm not sure they want the responsibility...and that is where their plan might not catch on..

I don't know how it's normally done, but I would have assumed that normally the risks/costs of missed connections would be shared by the two airlines involved.

My understanding of the Ryanair announcement is that they are saying "we'll feed you traffic if it comes at no risk to us" which leads me to believe that it's either a negotiating position or just outright PR.

man98

MoeJay wrote: »

Do we really believe that FR would be happy to take on all costs and responsibilities associated with ensuring passengers make connections...?
.

What MOL has proposed gives FR next to no responsibility, which is why it's unlikely this will be attempted.

MoeJay

That's why the article doesn't come across as credible to me. I figured as much!

FreudianSlippers

It's definite PR from Ryanair. It's highly unlikely they would be able to skirt their obligations under EU Regulation and "directly connecting flights" - anyone attempting such an agreement would argue in all likelihood that the tickets were separate and formed two distinct contracts, but if there was an overarching agreement it would be difficult for even the most delusional airline to believe they will win that court case.

18MonthsaSlave

In other news:
Fraport Terminal 3 will be available by 2021 according to the Hessen daily news this morning with building starting now taking capacity to over 70 million passengers per year.
It will be connected by skyline to existing terminals.

If you have an A380 or 787 will you fly through a smaller airport where there are fewer opportunities to fill up all the seats on your plane?
pre-clearance and landing charges only count for so much.

TheFitz13

http://m.independent.ie/business/pressure-growing-at-dublin-airport-for-second-runway-minister-donohoe-31464938.html

L1011

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

In other news:
Fraport Terminal 3 will be available by 2021 according to the Hessen daily news this morning with building starting now taking capacity to over 70 million passengers per year.
It will be connected by skyline to existing terminals.

If you have an A380 or 787 will you fly through a smaller airport where there are fewer opportunities to fill up all the seats on your plane?
pre-clearance and landing charges only count for so much.

I thought you opposed new terminal construction? At least you have for DUB, repeatedly.

18MonthsaSlave

L1011 wrote: »

I thought you opposed new terminal construction? At least you have for DUB, repeatedly.

The mistake you make is to compare a backwater like Dublin with an international transport hub.

L1011

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

The mistake you make is to compare a backwater like Dublin with an international transport hub.

You're just trying to argue that new terminals can generate/steal transfer traffic then you come out with this corker.

Try to be at least a little consistent.

18MonthsaSlave

You are the one who isn't making sense.
Dublin has its work cut out to steal passing traffic who have no interest in passing through it.
Dublin should stick to trying to serve the Irish public with good links to major European cities and international hubs in Europe and America.
It will never be a major European hub.

L1011

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

You are the one who isn't making sense.
Dublin has its work cut out to steal passing traffic who have no interest in passing through it.
Dublin should stick to trying to serve the Irish public with good links to major European cities and international hubs in Europe and America.
It will never be a major European hub.

So your argument is that they should just roll over like a good little puppy and let other airports grow at their expense, just because?

Right so.

18MonthsaSlave

L1011 wrote: »

So your argument is that they should just roll over like a good little puppy and let other airports grow at their expense, just because?

Right so.

If they don't have a competitive advantage then, yes, it is idiocy to invest in trying to turn the airport in to a hub. Dublin is not optimally located.
Ports developed throughout history because of where they were located.

LXFlyer

Dublin is perfectly placed to be a hub for passengers heading to North America from UK regions and other European cities if people wish to avail of the US pre-clearance.

L1011

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

If they don't have a competitive advantage then, yes, it is idiocy to invest in trying to turn the airport in to a hub. Dublin is not optimally located.
Ports developed throughout history because of where they were located.

Dublin is optimally located to be a TATL hub.

Its not intended to be an intra-EU hub, and hasn't made any moves to be such.