Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

markpb

LiamaDelta wrote: »

Isn't this 25m 'trigger' that people keep mentioning, just a notional figure where it would be sensible to start serious planning for a new development. There's no obligation on anybody to do anything. It's just a figure that the DAA recommended, somewhat as a signal to the regulator and the Minister for Transport? So like most things in this country that involve spending money it'll be long-fingered and dithered about until the airport reaches chronic overcapacity.

To be pedantic, DAA didn't come up with the figure, the Commission for Aviation Regulation did. They said that DAA couldn't increase landing charges to pay for the new runway until 25m pax were using the airport. Have a read through the 2014 fare determinations to see why. The graphs on pages 39-47 are funny in their inaccuracy (with hindsight). Page 82 describes their thinking on the runway.

LiamaDelta wrote: »

It's an arbitrary figure anyway....I predict the next discussion will be that it should be based on aircraft movements not passenger numbers as there is sufficient terminal capacity for 25+ million.

FWIW it's not an arbitrary figure. Again, the 2014FD explains where it came from. The runway previously handled 23.5m passengers. DAA managed to improve the peak hour capacity so that it could handle an estimated 25m passengers. When it reaches that point, they'll need a second runway to add more, especially at peak times. The reason they're not allowing the new runway to start before then is because AL and FR told them they could add passengers at off-peak hours, making better use of the existing runway, i.e. the airport can continue to grow while the runway is being built.

L1011

LiamaDelta wrote: »

It's an arbitrary figure anyway....I predict the next discussion will be that it should be based on aircraft movements not passenger numbers as there is sufficient terminal capacity for 25+ million.

If it was based on movements I think we would have breached anything a long time ago - the 23.5 to 25M boost was at a time of massively falling small craft ops (Aer Arann and Loganair domestic network going/gone, Flybe's subsidised NWI/NQY/etc gone) and any 'growth' / stemming the decline coming from widebody ops and I suspect that was why the passenger figure was hiked.

is this username available

Infrastructure investment will never be made based on passenger numbers using existing runway. Also won't be based on movements.

It should be based on forecast growth in excess of current capacity. The excess capacity will need to be significant too if there is a reliance on external finance. Finance costs are low at the moment but given how long it might take to get revised planning then conditions may not be as favourable.

Hotblack Desiato

LiamaDelta wrote: »

So like most things in this country that involve spending money it'll be long-fingered and dithered about until the airport reaches chronic overcapacity.

It's not public funds though, it's the DAA paying for it (well, airlines or rather passengers, but you get my drift) and I'm sure the DAA see further growth potential which can be taken advantage of with a second runway. There's no comparison between this and trying to get, say, a metro line built in Dublin which requires taxpayer funds and has to overcome a lot of political resistance.

is this username available

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's not public funds though, it's the DAA paying for it (well, airlines or rather passengers, but you get my drift) and I'm sure the DAA see further growth potential which can be taken advantage of with a second runway. There's no comparison between this and trying to get, say, a metro line built in Dublin which requires taxpayer funds and has to overcome a lot of political resistance.

Not entirely true, daa will not be covering the cost of revised road network afaik taxpayers are to pick up this cost. One of the reasons the quoted costs of new runway are not accurate.

markpb

is this username available wrote: »

Not entirely true, daa will not be covering the cost of revised road network afaik taxpayers are to pick up this cost. One of the reasons the quoted costs of new runway are not accurate.

That rarely happens for any major construction project - the development levies usually cover any expenditure by LA or national authority. Have you got a source?

Irish Steve

Given the numbers already employed at the airport, and the potential extra trans Atlantic traffic that could be generated by the use of Dublin as an additional hub terminal for the UK by IAG, DAA should be pushing forward with their expansion plans as rapidly as possible.

If (as expected) the third runway at Heathrow becomes mired in political struggles, IAG are going to be very keen to use Dublin as a hub to get passengers into the UK regionals from the Atlantic routes, with the Pre clearance outbound being an added benefit. Aer Lingus are already benefiting from traffic from UK airports, and it won't be long before BA are adding to it. That will mean more runway capacity, more stands in general, and more long haul stands,which are in already tight at some times of the day, so DAA need to get their finger out, their track record at doing important things that are actually aviation related is not exactly stellar, they seem to be OK at running Ireland's largest pub, but getting it right for the airline operations side seems not to be their strong suite.

If Dublin don't get their act together, IAG could well end up using Plan B, which would be easier for them in some respects, there's a huge terminal and runway at Shannon that's not under any capacity pressures, but that would mean a bigger marketing effort to fill the long haul flights, as there's not the same local demand there to benefit the short haul flights.

L1011

is this username available wrote: »

Not entirely true, daa will not be covering the cost of revised road network afaik taxpayers are to pick up this cost. One of the reasons the quoted costs of new runway are not accurate.

I highly doubt roads moved for what is effectively a private development (the DAAs ownership is irrelevant here) will be paid for by anything other than the entity requiring the move - the DAA.

Irish Steve

There's really only a few minor local roads that will be significantly affected, unless they want to move the new runway a lot further north than originally planned, a lot will depend on how much of the land they will need is already theirs.

The "back road" that goes past the Boot Inn and the fire station and tower area will not be able to remain a through road, and the St Margaret's Bypass covers the traffic that would use that road, the only significant change will be for people from Swords, who will have a longer journey to get to the fire station area than at present.

Jamie2k9

Irish Steve wrote: »

There's really only a few minor local roads that will be significantly affected, unless they want to move the new runway a lot further north than originally planned, a lot will depend on how much of the land they will need is already theirs.

The "back road" that goes past the Boot Inn and the fire station and tower area will not be able to remain a through road, and the St Margaret's Bypass covers the traffic that would use that road, the only significant change will be for people from Swords, who will have a longer journey to get to the fire station area than at present.

I need to check but they own all the land needed or at least will have CPO's if they don't. They require very little is all I know.

billie1b

Chairman of Star Alliance and the President of the Fingal Dublin Chamber both calling for a second parrallel runway at Dublin

http://m.independent.ie/regionals/fingalindependent/news/pressure-mounts-for-new-runway-34265919.html

JCX BXC

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

2019 is a big ask to reach 23.5 million passengers again, it will be close but I would say at least 1 or 2 years after that.

Just to reference the amazing growth of Dublin over the past few years, I'm quoting the above post from 2013!

Jamie2k9

Carnacalla wrote: »

Just to reference the amazing growth of Dublin over the past few years, I'm quoting the above post from 2013!

Indeed

Given the unexpected changes since them back in 2013 it was realistic projection.

Idbatterim

Passenger numbers up 18% this Christmas at Dublin Airport!

http://www.dublinairport.com/gns/at-the-airport/latest-news/15-12-17/Passenger_Numbers_Up_18_This_Christmas_At_Dublin_Airport.aspx

JCX BXC

18% Is an amazingly large increase.

Jamie2k9

https://twitter.com/Fearghaloc

JCX BXC

I really thought we could have done something right in this country.

Oh well

Jamie2k9

Carnacalla wrote: »

I really thought we could have done something right in this country.

Oh well

Could be media getting carried away and I don't believe for a second it will stop a new runway, DoT will sort it quickly I expect.

Jamie2k9

As I expected some top quality journalist read another site where the peak restrictions were applied when planning was granted.

davebuck

It does seem to be taking quite a while for the DAA to produce their plans re the second runway and even if the first sod was turned tomorrow the runway would still be at least 3 years away and they will be delays at the airport by then!!!!!

Newbie1000

davebuck wrote: »

It does seem to be taking quite a while for the DAA to produce their plans re the second runway and even if the first sod was turned tomorrow the runway would still be at least 3 years away and they will be delays at the airport by then!!!!!

Suspect the delay in announcing plans is to wait until the general election is out of the way so Fine Gael don't lose any north Dublin TD's as it will be a issue for the nimby crowd

Idbatterim

Newbie1000 wrote: »

Suspect the delay in announcing plans is to wait until the general election is out of the way so Fine Gael don't lose any north Dublin TD's as it will be a issue for the nimby crowd

Where else do these idiots think the runway might be built?! Baldonnel?! Lol!

JCX BXC

If you move beside a fec*king airport, then it should be something your comfortable with.

Carnacalla

Carnacalla wrote: »

If you move beside a fec*king airport, then it should be something your comfortable with.

You would think wouldn't you.

In terms of a new parallel runway and people saying aircraft noise will now affect them, eh aircraft were passing less than a mile south of your home anyway there isn't that much difference. I hear lots of aircraft noise and I'm 20miles away and I live just off the approach. I get motorway noise and I get train line noise too. Noise is an everyday factor.

Pat Dunne

Newbie1000 wrote: »

Suspect the delay in announcing plans is to wait until the general election is out of the way so Fine Gael don't lose any north Dublin TD's as it will be a issue for the nimby crowd

Not aware of any political party's who have set their pre-election stall out, stating that they are against the building of the new runway.

Newbie1000

Pat Dunne wrote: »

Not aware of any political party's who have set their pre-election stall out, stating that they are against the building of the new runway.

Me neither but easier for the govt to leave until after March, why take the risk when it is only a couple of months away?

JCX BXC

Pat Dunne wrote: »

Not aware of any political party's who have set their pre-election stall out, stating that they are against the building of the new runway.

If they do that, they will lose seats. If they state otherwise, they will lose seats. So they will keep their mouths shut as usual.

Stealthirl

Idbatterim wrote: »

Where else do these idiots think the runway might be built?! Baldonnel?! Lol!

Nope Weston

Stealthirl

Stealthirl wrote: »

Nope Weston

Hahahahahahahaha

TheFitz13

http://www.rte.ie/news/player/2015/1221/20901383-will-dublin-airport-get-a-new-runway/