Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Gaoth Laidir

notharrypotter wrote: »

I think you would need to specify a set distance not allow each operator to give its own version depending on the prevailing conditions on a given day.

I know that. Hey, I'm not writing a submission to the authorities here, just thinking out loud!

notharrypotter

notharrypotter wrote: »

Ah Dublin.

Sorry apologies Dublin.

Gaoth Laidir

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

But what areas are you saying would be affected by noise that would not be affected by 28R/10L? An early turn off 26/08 would cause no extra problems.

Malahide, Muhuddart, Leixlip, Blachardstown.

Gaoth Laidir

Deleted User wrote: »

Malahide, Muhuddart, Leixlip, Blachardstown.

No, I said with an early right turn. These areas would not be affected any more than they are at the moment. Malahide would have traffic well above 3000 ft and to its south. Blanchardstown and Mulhuddart just would not be affected off R26. See my posts again.

EDIT: As below

Gaoth Laidir

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

No, I said with an early right turn. These areas would not be affected any more than they are at the moment. Malahide would have traffic well above 3000 ft and to its south. Blanchardstown and Mulhuddart just would not be affected off R26. See my posts again.

How about you read my posts where I tell you that you cannot turn a Jet below 3,000ft for noise abatement in Dublin. I'm not going to ignore reality for your pipedream.

Malahide for 08 departure and for ILS approach 26.

Other three for approaches to 08 and for departure off 26.

Look it's never going to happen, I'm out.

Gaoth Laidir

Deleted User wrote: »

How about you read my posts where I tell you that you cannot turn a Jet below 3,000ft for noise abatement in Dublin. I'm not going to ignore reality for your pipedream.

Malahide for 08 departure and for ILS approach 26.

Other three for approaches to 08 and for departure off 26.

Look it's never going to happen, I'm out.

Easy there, no need to get angsty. This is not my pipedream, I am just voicing an opinion.

You can't turn below 3000 ft as it stands now. That does not mean they cannot change that with the building of a new runway. Hell, a lot of other things will change too with that.

ILS to 26, not that different to Portmarnock with the ILS 28 today. Maybe 500 ft lower.

ILS to 08, the flightpath would not be over Mulhuddard or Blanchardstown. Maybe Dunboyne, but at a little under 3000 ft.

Departures, not an issue.

bkehoe

Deleted User wrote: »

How about you read my posts where I tell you that you cannot turn a Jet below 3,000ft for noise abatement in Dublin.
Look it's never going to happen, I'm out.

This is simply part of the existing noise abatement procedure to ensure that no jet aircraft deviates from the axis of the runway which tend to be less densely populated. Theres absolutely no aircraft limitation or air law restriction to prevent a low level turn as part of noise abatement in a SID. A turn at 500ft is very common in various airports throughout the world, and some, e.g. ACE have a small immediate turn before 500ft.

Best example of this is in Barcelona where the vast majority of departures use 25L during westerly configuration with a very significant turn at 500ft.

Gaoth Laidir

bkehoe wrote: »

This is simply part of the existing noise abatement procedure to ensure that no jet aircraft deviates from the axis of the runway which tend to be less densely populated. Theres absolutely no aircraft limitation or air law restriction to prevent a low level turn as part of noise abatement in a SID. A turn at 500ft is very common in various airports throughout the world, and some, e.g. ACE have a small immediate turn before 500ft.

Best example of this is in Barcelona where the vast majority of departures use 25L during westerly configuration with a very significant turn at 500ft.

Not to mention the JKF 31L departure with its left turn after positive rate of climb is established (100-200 ft).

tricky D

This assumption that one is dedicated to take-off and the other for landing which is not how dual ops work at all, at all. Eg. LHR switches for many reasons eg. for some super heavies due to wake turbulence; noise spreading; just plain busy; maintenance; load spreading landing impacts; taxi times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Airport {Flight Movements)
http://www.heathrow.com/noise/heathrow-operations/runway-alternation

Irish Steve

Some of the reasons given above for not doing things at Dublin would make me laugh, if they weren't being proposed so seriously.

Weston and Baldonnel a problem? What a joke, the number of movements there are minuscule, if you want to see what can and is achieved on a regular basis, have a look at areas like the SOCAL area of California, New York and Denver areas, or the South East of England, there's more aircraft on the ramp at Centennial GA airfield in Denver than on the entire Irish Register, and they are pretty close to Denver International, which is not exactly quiet, but they exist alongside each other without any problems, and the same can be said in the LA area of California. There are a number of busy GA fields in the South East of the UK, but they don't have to stop operating because there's some movements at Heathrow.

There was a time not that long ago when there was NO 10/28 at Dublin, the main runway was 05/23, which put arriving traffic much closer to Swords, and departing traffic out over Finglas, and in the general direction of BAL and Weston, but the system didn't grind to a halt, and approaches on to 05 were carried out without any precision aids, and it all worked without significant issues, and with a different mix of traffic speeds than occurs now, things like Short 360's were considerably slower than 737's, and there was still significant GA activity at Dublin, but they co existed without issues, and in those days separation was procedural, there was no secondary surveillance radar or TCAS to keep people apart from each other.

Some of the guff that's being spouted is from people that either can't or don't want to try and make things work differently. Noise abatement is a far less significant problem that it used to be, modern jets are orders of magnitude quieter than they were 25 years ago, and most of them have a much better climb performance than they used to. A turn below 3000 Ft is normal on pretty much most departures from Heathrow, and that's with aircraft that are larger, heavier and in some cases noisier than the majority of the Dublin traffic, but it doesn't cause problems, they have to do it at Heathrow in order to get the needed separation on departure in order to cope with the volume of traffic that's using the place, and the noise abatement requirements at Heathrow are every bit as limiting as the restrictions at Dublin.

It's all about attitudes, a long time ago, in Texas, the standard route into the main GA field that is north of Fort worth was overhead Fort Worth at 4000 Ft, in VFR or IFR, and then radar vectors on to the approach for Addison, if someone were to suggest routing GA traffic into Weston at 4000 Ft over Dublin, there's be conniptions and all manner of violent objections, but they seem to be fully capable of dealing with it in Texas, with significantly more traffic in the local area, this was over 20 years ago, and at the quietest time on a Saturday morning, I had a quick count of the traffic at DFW, and there were 16 aircraft in the air within 6 miles of the airfield that were all working with the tower, and I don't think that happens at Dublin very often. There have been times in Ireland when the imminent departure of an ATR from Luton inbound was a good excuse to defer start up and departure of GA traffic from some smaller airfields, we're really not talking about the same scenarios here.

The reality is that because of the long term planning at Dublin, the second runway is pretty much fixed in stone as 10/28, and changing it now would cause a whole range of problems related to land ownership. If there'd been some more advanced thinking when the original 10/28 was put forward, it would have made more sense to retain 05/23 as an alternative runway, but that would have had all manner of implications for terminal locations, aircraft parking stands, roads, and all the other issues that were a nightmare to deal with when 10/28 was being built. Back then, it would have been much easier to have sorted out the land required, and to have ensured the safe areas that are needed close in, but that would have required people with real vision and an idea of what might be going to happen in the years to come, and in those days, Aer Rianta was a state body, and full of state appointees, with very few having any real vision or interest in aviation, Aer Rianta was a useful rung on the ladder to higher things in other areas of the State system, so there were a whole range of issues that are now causing problems, and if they'd been properly managed 25 or more years ago, things would be very different now.

For all sorts of reasons, Dublin desperately needs the second runway, but make no mistake, more could be done with what's there. Gatwick is also effectively a single runway airport, albeit with a much better stand and terminal layout, they handled 38 Million passengers in 2014, and at least 50,000 more aircraft movements in the 12 month period, but that's based on the very vague figures of "up to 600 per day" quoted by DAA for Dublin.

Dublin faces some very urgent and important decisions. IAG now own Aer Lingus, and have made it abundantly clear that in their eyes, Dublin can and should be used as a trans atlantic hub, even more so if the decision about additional capacity at Heathrow continues to be fudged by the UK government, which could generate a lot of additional movements. For that to happen, Dublin has to step up and get it's act together, in terms of stands and slot availability, and if they don't, there is no doubt that IAG and others will look elsewhere for their future expansions. While it doesn't have the local population to provide local traffic numbers, there is no doubt that Shannon has more than enough capacity in terms of slots, stands and runway capacity to take the extra traffic if Dublin doesn't get it's act together, and geographically, Shannon is as well placed as Dublin to fulfil the role of an Atlantic hub.

It will be very interesting to see what the new plan for the airport evolves into, DAA already has planning permission for a second runway, but it is becoming increasingly clear that their thinking has changed, and they are going to be looking to change that plan, with the runway being moved further from the existing runway. Hopefully, they also will not compromise on the length of the new runway, as was the case with the existing 10/28.

Shannon Control

Pothole just reported by departing RYR off 10. Paschal's minions needs to get their arse in gear fairly lively!

Shannon Control

Shannon Control wrote: »

Pothole just reported by departing RYR off 10. Paschal's minions needs to get their arse in gear fairly lively!

No pothole found.

Pat Dunne

Shannon Control wrote: »

Paschal's minions needs to get their arse in gear fairly lively!

Idbatterim

Originally Posted by Shannon Control View Post
Paschal's minions needs to get their arse in gear fairly lively!

ha coming from the crowd who have just pushed back MN for 5 years and postponed DU for 5 years! (due to concerns about cost and patronage figures) the original metro north figures were too optimistic, yet the numbers this year using the airport as example, were 1.5 million higher than the boom! I wouldnt be surprised if they are close to 30,000,000 next year! M50 busier than ever.

The one difference with the airport is, it would get far more negative press in the media and the price tag is obviously a lot smaller than the aforementioned projects.

Maybe we should consult with the western politicians again, limit the new runway to the length of the current one, sure if Cork and Shannon cant have direct future flights to potentially Shanghai, Beijing etc, why should Dublin?

While the runway debate over Gatwick and Heathrow carries on, Dublin should act fast and decisively and hope the IAG start new routes and increase capacity on existing ones out of Dublin....

It would be great if IAG started new routes out of Dublin, cause Aer Lingus dont do anything quickly...

jamo2oo9

Idbatterim wrote: »

ha coming from the crowd who have just pushed back MN for 5 years and postponed DU for 5 years! (due to concerns about cost and patronage figures) the original metro north figures were too optimistic, yet the numbers this year using the airport as example, were 1.5 million higher than the boom! I wouldnt be surprised if they are close to 30,000,000 next year! M50 busier than ever.

The one difference with the airport is, it would get far more negative press in the media and the price tag is obviously a lot smaller than the aforementioned projects.

Maybe we should consult with the western politicians again, limit the new runway to the length of the current one, sure if Cork and Shannon cant have direct future flights to potentially Shanghai, Beijing etc, why should Dublin?

While the runway debate over Gatwick and Heathrow carries on, Dublin should act fast and decisively and hope the IAG start new routes and increase capacity on existing ones out of Dublin....

It would be great if IAG started new routes out of Dublin, cause Aer Lingus dont do anything quickly...

IAG owns Aer Lingus. It's up to them to decide on what routes will be launched and when. Aer Lingus is just a company operating on behalf of IAG so they don't get much say in the way it's run.

JCX BXC

Really? I think its like a council/government setup. The Aer Lingus management make most decisions about the company, but are answerable to IAG.

FreudianSlippers

Carnacalla wrote: »

Really? I think its like a council/government setup. The Aer Lingus management make most decisions about the company, but are answerable to IAG.

This is certainly what was agreed by the government and IAG in order to go ahead with the sale, so...

Finnair increasing service to 9x per week for the summer due to demand.

TheFitz13

Anybody know when the 2015 passenger numbers will be released?

Stealthirl

Idbatterim wrote: »

While the runway debate over Gatwick and Heathrow carries on, Dublin should act fast and decisively and hope the IAG start new routes and increase capacity on existing ones out of Dublin....

It would be great if IAG started new routes out of Dublin, cause Aer Lingus dont do anything quickly...

I remember hearing a comment on the APG podcast i think that IAG were talking about DUB or MAD if the debate over Gatwick and Heathrow carries on much longer [DUB makes more sense i would of thought ?]

JCX BXC

Stealthirl wrote: »

I remember hearing a comment on the APG podcast i think that IAG were talking about DUB or MAD if the debate over Gatwick and Heathrow carries on much longer [DUB makes more sense i would of thought ?]

That's really only political bate IMO.

MAD is already a thriving South America hub in it's own right, I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to push a few more North American Pax through yhere

BonkeyDonker

Carnacalla wrote: »

That's really only political bate IMO.

MAD is already a thriving South America hub in it's own right, I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to push a few more North American Pax through yhere

That would not make a lot of sense for large parts of eastern/Northern Europe and the UK as you are flying south to go North again. Dublin, and indeed Shannon, are more geographically suited to the North American Market, with Madrid capable of handling the South American market as you have said.

JCX BXC

BonkeyDonker wrote: »

That would not make a lot of sense for large parts of eastern/Northern Europe and the UK as you are flying south to go North again. Dublin, and indeed Shannon, are more geographically suited to the North American Market, with Madrid capable of handling the South American market as you have said.

Geographically, no it doesn't make alot of sense, but it doesn't really have to. How many UK pax fly east to AMS to fly west to the US?

Pat Dunne

Carnacalla wrote: »

How many UK pax fly east to AMS to fly west to the US?

How many?

L1011

Pat Dunne wrote: »

How many?

Quite a lot, looking at the size of KLMs UK ops and connection patterns when I've done the same (wasnt the only connecting from DUB either)

BonkeyDonker

Carnacalla wrote: »

Geographically, no it doesn't make alot of sense, but it doesn't really have to. How many UK pax fly east to AMS to fly west to the US?

L1011 wrote: »

Quite a lot, looking at the size of KLMs UK ops and connection patterns when I've done the same (wasnt the only connecting from DUB either)

But that was more through a lack of options for the most part. Travel overland to Heathrow, or backtrack to Amsterdam and fly from there. Dublin has the advantage of being in the right direction for North America, where as going via Madrid eliminates this advantage. I can imagine IAG will be trying to funnel all the UK-AMS-North America through Dublin both to increase their loads, and to take this traffic away from Air France/KLM.

JCX BXC

When can we expect the exact 2015 passenger numbers?

TheFitz13

Carnacalla wrote: »

When can we expect the exact 2015 passenger numbers?

All other airports have theirs out, the DAA take ages to do anything tbh

Bussywussy

TheFitz13 wrote: »

All other airports have theirs out, the DAA take ages to do anything tbh

Any link to the other airports figures??

JCX BXC

Bussywussy wrote: »

Any link to the other airports figures??

Take a look at The Shannon Airport thread.