Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Jamie2k9

snotboogie wrote: »

So Dublin doesn't need to expand or add infrastructure if it is going to handle 40 million pax a year?

I didn't say that.....

Three Points:
1 - Growth will moderate over the next few years.
2 - There is lots of capacity available within existing infrastructure which I know is not totally suitable but there is no need for a major spend short term. T2 will medium be expanded with F pier and they will satisfy a lot of demand for long haul ops and free up 300 gates for T1 for the most part.
3 - Current runway causes so many problems for ground movements, new runway will solve most of this.

Irish Steve

To make the airport a better place to use, and to allow it to expand, there are a number of pressing issues.

The first is that the second runway has to be built as a matter of urgency, to make more slots available, especially at peak periods, and to allow unrestricted operations on long haul routes that are at present constrained by the length of 10/28

The existing road access to Terminal 1 is a disaster area, and it's only luck that there have been no significant accidents in the set down area. It needs to be changed to sort out the inappropriate mix of pedestrians and vehicles in the middle of the road, and a better way of enabling passenger pick up is long overdue.

The bus terminal is badly organised and operated, and there are regular problems with passengers not able to find the correct location for their service

A decent rail service that as a minimum provides regular services to the centre of Dublin, and ideally links in with other rail services is going to be needed to ensure that the airport doesn't become grid locked with traffic.

A massive redesign of the cargo handling land side operation, and the airside cargo ramp area will be needed to facilitate the expansion of Terminal 2 gates, the present system is a nightmare for the service companies, both in terms of ramp access and stands for cargo operations, due to the distances involved and the problems of getting complex ground handling equipment to and from those stand. There are areas of the stands that are inaccessible to things like high loaders due to the location of the stands, and the drainage ditch locations that make it impossible to cross them with these machines.

The landside cargo area is a nightmare for HGV access, the roads are narrow, and the turns tight, which makes getting in and out of the area a lot more difficult than it should be.

DAA have plenty to keep them occupied over the next few years, just to keep up with the changes that are already happening.



The road access at the entrance to the airport needs to be upgraded to a grade separated junction to enable local traffic to get past the area.

rameire

when the new runway is in play and things are getting better, and T3 is properly being thought of,
would Cargo be best served on its own on the land at the long term blue carpark, or does cargo need to be near the terminals?
im thinking it would be a great spot to put it, as it is in between Jn 5 and Jn 4 on the M50, it will have great access to the N2 and N3. and will have a massive space to grow and expand over the years.

Irish Steve

The ideal place for cargo would be over near the tower/fire station complex, as long as the access roads are upgraded. Cargo doesn't need to be anywhere near the passenger terminals, it only needs to be near the area of the ramp that the aircraft are parked in, and that's a major problem at the moment, the aircraft can't be parked all day on the stands that are used for loading and unloading, so that adds a significant cost to the operation, as the aircraft end up being towed off stand to remote parking, and then have to be towed back for loading, which costs, both in terms of time and money.

The area south of the existing main runway would not be so good, as there would be problems getting ground vehicles from the cargo area to the stands that the aircraft are parked on, unless a tunnel is built under the runway, which would be an expensive solution to the problem.

At some stage, I can see the area at the western end of the airfield that's between the 2 runways will become a part of airside, with a mixture of terminal, hangars and parking space, and there have been ideas in this vein floated on several occasions, but nothing definitive. What is clear is that there will be an increasing pressure on parking stands, if nothing else, the present facility on the old runway 29 won't be possible when 28R is built, so the aircraft that are parked there at present will have to be found a new home.

In the same vein, I wouldn't be surprised to see the area around the Aer Lingus Technical building and the smaller hangars being cleared and a new terminal being put on that area, some of the hangars are pretty old, and quite small, and the Aer Lingus technical building is not used to the same extent that it was, so using that area for more terminal space would seem to be a natural development.

denis halpenny

A new rail system is vital between the airport and city centre for the airport to grow to its potential.Why oh why are the government so slow in making this connection its a disgrace.

Jamie2k9

denis halpenny wrote: »

A new rail system is vital between the airport and city centre for the airport to grow to its potential.Why oh why are the government so slow in making this connection its a disgrace.

A railway link is needed and would be fantastic however lets not over play it as it will have no bearing on DUB as an airport or those who decide to use it.

The first is that the second runway has to be built as a matter of urgency, to make more slots available, especially at peak periods, and to allow unrestricted operations on long haul routes that are at present constrained by the length of 10/28

Indeed but it the current time frame won't change. Airlines voted down a plan to add an extra slot or two during some peak hours and they were less than impressed with the changes over the past summer (over S15) so decided no further changes for 2017. Both EI/FR are more concerned with punctuality at peak hours than slots for the monument and rightly so.

The pre 06.00, off peak and remote stand at peak hour discounts will only continue to grow and encourage more off peak operations.

The bus terminal is badly organised and operated, and there are regular problems with passengers not able to find the correct location for their service

Completely agree here, all it needs is signage with each operators.

As for the cargo area's tend to agree but I guess once the revised master plan is revealed it will contain something along those lines. Will be surprised if there is not movement on F pier towards end of 2017/early 2018 with a view to it opening early 2020's.

Open Up

Irish Steve wrote: »

Cargo doesn't need to be anywhere near the passenger terminals, it only needs to be near the area of the ramp that the aircraft are parked in

The majority of cargo handled in the 3/4 cargo terminals travels on passenger aircraft, parked at the passenger terminals.

Irish Steve

Open Up wrote: »

The majority of cargo handled in the 3/4 cargo terminals travels on passenger aircraft, parked at the passenger terminals.

If that's the case now, it's significantly changed from when I was working on the ramp. the volumes processed by the dedicated cargo operators was way more than was handled by the scheduled services. The Middle East flights may well have changed that dynamic, but the European flights take very little freight, and Ryanair takes none.

Open Up

Irish Steve wrote: »

If that's the case now, it's significantly changed from when I was working on the ramp. the volumes processed by the dedicated cargo operators was way more than was handled by the scheduled services. The Middle East flights may well have changed that dynamic, but the European flights take very little freight, and Ryanair takes none.

Yeh that's still true of the European flights. Not much freight handled there. Different story for TA and Middle East-bound widebody passenger traffic though. Emirates alone can transport 50 tonnes of freight on a good day. The dedicated freight services are limited. DHL and FedEx the only ones operating almost daily and their volumes aren't particularly high at that. Bluebird too operating 737 freighters. Certainly no where near the volumes transported on the various daily TA passenger flights. An A330 can carry well over 10 tonnes of freight.

Irish Steve

If that's the case, then yes, it has changed, when I was there, the volumes on Fedex and DHL, as well at TNT and UPS were significant, with limited quantities on the Transatlantic flights, though I wasn't involved with EI flights. There was some freight on Air Canada as well.

The advent of more 330's and 777's will for sure have opened up more opportunities, but I would expect the cargo only operators to see an increase going forward, while the economy is recovering, that recovery is still patchy, so I suspect that the dedicated cargo carriers are not yet back to the levels that they were during the peak of the Tiger years.

Open Up

Irish Steve wrote: »

If that's the case, then yes, it has changed, when I was there, the volumes on Fedex and DHL, as well at TNT and UPS were significant, with limited quantities on the Transatlantic flights, though I wasn't involved with EI flights. There was some freight on Air Canada as well.

The advent of more 330's and 777's will for sure have opened up more opportunities, but I would expect the cargo only operators to see an increase going forward, while the economy is recovering, that recovery is still patchy, so I suspect that the dedicated cargo carriers are not yet back to the levels that they were during the peak of the Tiger years.

UPS still operates limited quantities through Star Air. The majority of exports from this country are pharma, medical devices, and semiconductor components, most of which is suited to transport on passenger aircraft as belly hold freight. There isn't a big enough demand for freighter only aircraft from those industries here. As far as I know, even when Singapore flew 747Fs here it was mainly to transport electronics made by Creative, who pulled out.

Irish Steve

The other regular large load that used to go on the TA flights (Delta mainly) was full pallets of inkjet refills from the HP plant in Leixlip, there were serious quantities of them used to go out fairly regularly.
Back in the day, if my memory hasn't got too rusty, the Fedex was the Hercules, I think UPS was an A300, and DHL operated a mixture of A300's and later 757's. TNT was either 146 or 737, but I think that was also an A300 for a time. There was also a regular An Post service that was a Swedish Avro 748 Turboprop.

I think the Singapore freight service was problematic because they couldn't operate at MTOW out of Dublin due to the short sightedness of the politicians of the day who buckled under the pressure from the Shannon lobby, so the runway at Dublin was made shorter than Shannon as a concession to the parish pump mentality. While it's not a major issue, there have been a number of occasions where flights have not been able to take the booked full load as a result of that political interference. It won't be solved till 28R is built.

There were other irregular visitors, we regularly had 727's doing horse charters to a number of strange and exotic locations, and they took some time to set up properly.

I can still remember the AN124's coming in occasionally, and causing huge problems with pushing them back off the only stand that they'd fit, the problem with the push was that it was slightly uphill, and a significant sharp turn, so with the number of tyres being distorted by the turn, and the uphill gradient, the only tug that was capable of moving the beast was a twin engine Aer Lingus tug, which Servisair had to borrow or hire, depending on the state of hostilities at the time.

The other problem with the 124 was that after the push, there was then a considerable delay while the massive towbar was taken to the back of the aircraft and loaded to go with the aircraft to the next location. That effectively blocked the southern exit from what used to be the C pier and the inner line of the 50's stands, which was on occasions a problem.

davebuck

Finally its starts.....from the DAA North Runway site
Quote:

Work is now starting on the first construction package for North Runway. A number of pre-commencement conditions relating to the project, which received planning permission in August 2007, have now been discharged, allowing for the works to begin. This initial phase of the project will run for about eight months and will support up to 100 construction jobs. As previously indicated, the works will involve the diversion of the Naul Road, a realignment of the Forrest Little Road, and associated works including site fencing, services diversions, and site clearance and demolitions.

Idbatterim

Fantastic news! When will it be operational?

davebuck

Idbatterim wrote: »

Fantastic news! When will it be operational?

2020 according to their timeline

TheFitz13

27m pax so far this year, great milestone.


https://www.dublinairport.com/latest-news/detail/dublin-airport-welcomes-27m-passengers-for-the-first-time

de biz

Just noticed that as part of the North runway associated works will be the construction of Designated viewing areas.
No further detail but good development.

Charles Babbage

Things have moved along since the last time
http://www.rte.ie/archives/2016/1116/832157-dublin-airport-runway-row/

MJohnston

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Things have moved along since the last time
http://www.rte.ie/archives/2016/1116/832157-dublin-airport-runway-row/

Hilarious to see what opposition was worried about - the driving time between Ballymun and Swords!!

Blut2

They really should have just CPO'd any residents within a certain radius of the airport decades ago. The ridiculous NIMBYish excuses every decade for any mooted airport expansion/improvement just hold back the country as a whole unnecessarily.

Charles Babbage

MJohnston wrote: »

Hilarious to see what opposition was worried about - the driving time between Ballymun and Swords!!

Infrastructure improvements are generally designed to improve travel time, not make it worse.

A Dub in Glasgo

MJohnston wrote: »

Hilarious to see what opposition was worried about - the driving time between Ballymun and Swords!!

The objections of a road under the runway was always a tad weak

Charles Babbage

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The objections of a road under the runway was always a tad weak

In those days there was a fear that the British would put a car bomb in the tunnel and nowadays of course there are a variety of international groups that might do this.

medoc

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Things have moved along since the last time
http://www.rte.ie/archives/2016/1116/832157-dublin-airport-runway-row/

"Last year the airport handled over two and a half million passengers" Wow they sure have moved on. Imagine what growth the 2nd main runway could facilitate. While not ridiculing local objections to today's new runway it's funny to see the same arguments been used as with the 1980's development. I'm sure the new development won't have any more serious implications than 30 years ago did.

murphaph

Charles Babbage wrote: »

In those days there was a fear that the British would put a car bomb in the tunnel and nowadays of course there are a variety of international groups that might do this.

A car bomb would do nothing in a tunnel with thousands of tonnes of earth covering it. This was one case of reasonable objections. They weren't NIMBYs because they accepted the runway itself, they just wanted a tunnel under it to mitigate the negative effects and tunnels under runways like this are common as muck around the world. It was a cost saving exercise by the state.

If they ever build a mid-field terminal they'll probably end up building tunnels under both runways anyway!

Peregrine

Surprised to not see any mention of this here. Last week, planning permission was granted to construct a new 'Pre-Boarding Facility'.

From what I can gather:

1. A temporary building (7 years) will be constructed between the south apron and the Aer Lingus Cargo building.
2. Narrow body aircraft will park on stands adjacent to this building
3. Passengers will be bussed to/from this facility and board/disembark aircraft from/into the building.








http://planning.fingalcoco.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayURL?theApnID=F16A/0483 planning application
http://documents.fingalcoco.ie/NorthgatePublicDocs/00539259.pdf drawings
http://documents.fingalcoco.ie/NorthgatePublicDocs/00539251.pdf
http://documents.fingalcoco.ie/NorthgatePublicDocs/00539258.pdf a few black and white photomontages

Idbatterim

what happens when the seven years is up, can they apply for retention permission or do they hope to have long term extensions in place by then?

LXFlyer

Presumably the planned new pier at Terminal 2 will then be constructed.

Peregrine

An extension of Pier D was granted planning permission earlier in the year.
http://planning.fingalcoco.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayURL?theApnID=F16A/0121






And the construction of a 'Passenger Transfer Facility' (currently on appeal) which will be an extension to Pier E where the 408 stands are.







http://planning.fingalcoco.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayURL?theApnID=F16A/0200

Peregrine

Idbatterim wrote: »

what happens when the seven years is up, can they apply for retention permission or do they hope to have long term extensions in place by then?

It's a case of daa applying for seven years as opposed to being told it'll be temporary. So I presume they hope to have something more permanent by then.