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…3132343637…293

Comments

  • Options
    #992
    Locker10a
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 4,173 Mod ✭✭✭✭Locker10a


    I heard a headline on the One o'clock news about Dublin reaching enough growth to start planning of a new runway


  • Options
    #993
    jamo2oo9
    Registered Users Posts: 5,780 ✭✭✭jamo2oo9


    Locker10a wrote: »
    I heard a headline on the One o'clock news about Dublin reaching enough growth to start planning of a new runway

    Was in the papers too. Something about ryanair threatening to pay for the high cost of the new runway? Not too sure now as I didn't give it much time to read it.


  • Options
    #994
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I said before planning started ages ago for the new runway, currently as it stands they have planning permission for A parallel runway. It however is not filling all the requirements of both the DAA and ATC, so they are looking to improve on its design/length and limits of use that have been imposed on them.

    Shortly the DAA will be applying for planning permission for the new updated runway.

    After it is finished construction the old one will have to close for rehabilitation, either complete reconstruction or major reworking of it, as a result parallel ops won't be available in Dublin for quite some time yet.

    However the new runway will bring vast improvements it'll be longer, have more entry and exits points allowing ATC a higher capacity per hour etc.


  • Options
    #995
    Tenger
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,877 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    jamo2oo9 wrote: »
    Was in the papers too. Something about ryanair threatening to pay for the high cost of the new runway? Not too sure now as I didn't give it much time to read it.
    FR are making noise about not being willing to pay for a high cost runway, they are implying thaat the DAA will not select the most cost effective runway. ANd will probably use the phrase "gold plated white elephant" again.
    In utv.ie article they are even quoted as saying
    Ryanair said it will support the building of a new runway, but only if it was cost effective.It cited the "mistakes" made in building of Terminal 2, which it said was due to cost €300 million but ended up in excess of €1 billion.

    Article here: http://utv.ie/News/2015/09/03/DAA-exploring-new-Dublin-Airport-runway-options-44275


  • Options
    #996
    basill
    Registered Users Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭basill


    Well he is quite welcome to take his services to Baldonnel or Weston. I am sure the DAA will call his bluff But not before he spends a few million of shareholders funds on legal fees.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #997
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,968 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    The bull**** billion comes out again I see.


  • Options
    #998
    jamo2oo9
    Registered Users Posts: 5,780 ✭✭✭jamo2oo9


    Just out of curiosity, how much did T2 cost to build from start to finish?


  • Options
    #999
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,852 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    it is understandable that Ryanair want it done for the best value possible. We all should. It should be done right though also. I often see projects here for jaw dropping amounts, which seem very average and a multiple of what is spent on the equivalent in other eu countires. Does the regulator have any say in the cost of the runway etc?


  • Options
    #1000
    fr336
    Registered Users Posts: 10,179 ✭✭✭✭fr336


    basill wrote: »
    Well he is quite welcome to take his services to Baldonnel or Weston. I am sure the DAA will call his bluff But not before he spends a few million of shareholders funds on legal fees.

    Did FR not have a point with Terminal 2 due to cost 300million and in the end going for over a billion?


  • Options
    #1001
    fr336
    Registered Users Posts: 10,179 ✭✭✭✭fr336


    L1011 wrote: »
    The bull**** billion comes out again I see.

    Fair enough, just done some research suggesting 600 million. What's 300 million between friends eh :P I think FR are well within their rights to comment if they're going to be paying such sums towards something.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1002
    Tenger
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,877 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    fr336 wrote: »
    Did FR not have a point with Terminal 2 due to cost 300million and in the end going for over a billion?

    T2 itself cost 600M, the overall airport development plan cost another 600M.
    hence teh oft qouted FR figure of 1.2BN.
    They make it seem like they lost out, but they in fact benefited from this project; a new modern hanger close to their aircraft parking stands, less congestion at 'their' terminal, expanded ramp near their parking stands, the removal of other carriers so that FR pretty much have Pier D as their own personal pier.


  • Options
    #1003
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,968 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    fr336 wrote: »
    Did FR not have a point with Terminal 2 due to cost 300million and in the end going for over a billion?

    Tenger's given figures there on the actual cost - but I also dispute that 300m was actually given as a suspected cost for the T2 that was built. I believe that was a figure given much further in the past for a smaller facility, without US CBP and so on.

    The 1Bn includes many improvements that benefit FR hugely. Even with those and no T2, I suspect they'd not be too happy with luggage loading in the carpark and so on.


  • Options
    #1004
    Bigcheeze
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭Bigcheeze


    basill wrote: »
    Well he is quite welcome to take his services to Baldonnel or Weston. I am sure the DAA will call his bluff But not before he spends a few million of shareholders funds on legal fees.

    Actually no, as long as DAA have the privilege of a monopoly then all their major decisions are open to external scrutiny by any interested party.

    If there were multiple Dublin airports then DAA would be free to waste money as they please.

    Also charging extra to pay for this is nonsense.
    If they invest in an asset they should pay for it from the increased traffic in future that uses it.


  • Options
    #1005
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,968 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Bigcheeze wrote: »
    Also charging extra to pay for this is nonsense.
    If they invest in an asset they should pay for it from the increased traffic in future that uses it.

    Borrowing isn't free.


  • Options
    #1006
    is this username available
    Registered Users Posts: 57 ✭✭is this username available


    Bigcheeze wrote: »
    Also charging extra to pay for this is nonsense.
    If they invest in an asset they should pay for it from the increased traffic in future that uses it.

    How high would passenger numbers need to be to cover the finance cost of a new runway?

    There seems to be a build and they will come mentality so I was just wondering what the break even number is on an additional 1bn finance?


  • Options
    #1007
    Tenger
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,877 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    is this username available wrote: »
    How high would passenger numbers need to be to cover the finance cost of a new runway?

    There seems to be a build and they will come mentality so I was just wondering what the break even number is on an additional 1bn finance?

    Well 25m per year was the threshold used to determine whether a 2nd runway was needed or not. That figure is not set in stone and will be achieved this year (probably) Hence the talk of getting the PP set up. I think they have PP in place but want to resubmit to make the runway larger.

    Any increase in charges would need to be allowed by the aviation regulator, DAA cannot just jack up prices. And considering that the deby for T2 will be paid off off a couple of decades I would expect something similar from any new runway.

    A point about any new runway...once built DUB would use it in order to allow the current runway to be resurfaced and repaired. Otherwise the airport would need to be closed for a portion of each day to carry this out.
    Thus a new runway will directly benefit Ryanair, regardless of their protestations.


  • Options
    #1008
    Shannon Control
    Closed Accounts Posts: 146 ✭✭Shannon Control


    Dublin being Ryanair's second largest (?) base will mean that MOL will do anything he can do to keep the prices as they are. He doesn't want to pay for the second runway, but if you have any idea of the congestion in the morning it's just ridiculous, like honestly it's laughable, due to the amount of flights and Dublin's wonky taxi routings.
    If the DAA put out a realistic budget estimate and stick to it as best as possible, providing security for that, MOL will agree, and if he doesn't, the DAA will call his bluff. The second runway is in planning stages already, they just don't want to do the PR side of things yet. The recent boom of PR from politicians and airlines RE 28R has stopped now, taking pressure off the DAA until next summer before the airport is near operating capacity.
    The new runway, as said, won't be built until 2021/2 if things get going, and parallel won't be operational for another 2 to resurface 28L/10R. The new runway will massively ease congestion along with the new stands, Dublin is growing too fast for its capability, which is a great thing to be able to say. If it grows the same, or slightly less as it has this year next year, the airlines will all start pressuring the DAA massively. The IAA are also massively pressurising the DAA (internally) as they will get the bad PR from the airlines as they are the orchestra of the ground. They do a great job with what they have up in Dublin.


  • Options
    #1009
    is this username available
    Registered Users Posts: 57 ✭✭is this username available


    Article in today's independent that daa have gone to tender to upgrade existing runway.

    A bit of common sense it seems! There is no need to spend billions on building a 2nd runway just to resurface the existing one. I do agree they will need another runway but that argument is simply incorrect.


  • Options
    #1010
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,312 ✭✭✭markpb


    is this username available wrote: »
    Article in today's independent that daa have gone to tender to upgrade existing runway.

    Linky
    "Recent studies have determined that the runway does not have sufficient structural strength for the projected aircraft movements over the next 15-20 years and a rehabilitation of the pavement is required," the DAA has told prospective contractors.

    It added: "The condition of a number of other very critical assets in the vicinity of runway 10/28 has also been assessed over the last number of years. Through these assessments, it has been determined that the assets must be rehabilitated within the next two to three years in order to sustain airport operations and reduce the risk of a system failure."

    The DAA noted that it finds it difficult to even locate spares for its critical but aging approach lighting system.

    ...

    The works the DAA has sought tenders for also include the upgrade of lighting on the runway; taxiway upgrades; additional infrastructure for bigger aircraft such as the A380; and new signage.


  • Options
    #1011
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    is this username available wrote: »
    A bit of common sense it seems! There is no need to spend billions on building a 2nd runway just to resurface the existing one. I do agree they will need another runway but that argument is simply incorrect.

    I take it you haven't read this thread,if you had you would be aware that this was ALWAYS going to happen. It's not BILLIONS being spent on a new runway it'll be between 150 and 200 million euro on the new runway and infrastructure.

    The very last sentence of the quote I don't understand can you please explain it, you agree a new runway needs to be built but what argument is incorrect ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1012
    is this username available
    Registered Users Posts: 57 ✭✭is this username available


    Sorry should have been clearer, there are multiple quotes in this thread that the new runway needed to be built in order to enable this to happen. I'm simply saying proceeding with this is the sensible thing to do.

    And yes I have been following this thread for a long time.

    Fwiw, new runway, supporting infrastructure and revised road network will be multiples of 200 million.


  • Options
    #1013
    christy c
    Registered Users Posts: 2,196 ✭✭✭christy c


    Tenger wrote: »
    T2 itself cost 600M, the overall airport development plan cost another 600M.
    hence teh oft qouted FR figure of 1.2BN.
    They make it seem like they lost out, but they in fact benefited from this project; a new modern hanger close to their aircraft parking stands, less congestion at 'their' terminal, expanded ramp near their parking stands, the removal of other carriers so that FR pretty much have Pier D as their own personal pier.

    Sorry to dig up a nearly two week old post, but do you know what the other 600M was spent on?


  • Options
    #1014
    billie1b
    Registered Users Posts: 3,813 ✭✭✭billie1b


    christy c wrote: »
    Sorry to dig up a nearly two week old post, but do you know what the other 600M was spent on?

    Brown envelopes


  • Options
    #1015
    lord lucan
    Registered Users Posts: 9,576 ✭✭✭lord lucan


    christy c wrote: »
    Sorry to dig up a nearly two week old post, but do you know what the other 600M was spent on?

    T1X, Pier D and new Road layouts were the bulk of it.


  • Options
    #1016
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,968 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    christy c wrote: »
    Sorry to dig up a nearly two week old post, but do you know what the other 600M was spent on?

    The pier Ryanair almost exclusively operate from and would be rather screwed without was part of it.


  • Options
    #1017
    basill
    Registered Users Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭basill


    Certainly beats the portacabins they had snaking end on end.......but he fails to mention that in his spin.


  • Options
    #1018
    billie1b
    Registered Users Posts: 3,813 ✭✭✭billie1b


    L1011 wrote: »
    The pier Ryanair almost exclusively operate from and would be rather screwed without was part of it.

    You could also say that without Ryanair Pier D would not be needed


  • Options
    #1019
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,968 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    billie1b wrote: »
    You could also say that without Ryanair Pier D would not be needed

    You could, but it'd be irrelevant.


  • Options
    #1020
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,023 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    billie1b wrote: »
    You could also say that without Ryanair Pier D would not be needed
    The travel demand would still exist without FR. Some other airline would be catering to it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1021
    billie1b
    Registered Users Posts: 3,813 ✭✭✭billie1b


    L1011 wrote: »
    You could, but it'd be irrelevant.

    Not really irrelevant, FR were pumping aircraft into an airport that had barely enough space, at one stange there was 27 aircraft there with only 16 able to be on contact stands, if anything FR are the cause of Pier D being constructed, no other airline would have pumped as many aircarft into a small space. FR created the demand


Advertisement