Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Charles Babbage

murphaph wrote: »

A car bomb would do nothing in a tunnel with thousands of tonnes of earth covering it. This was one case of reasonable objections.

Such a bomb might not do much harm, but you'd have to close the runway while you investigated things.

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

Arguably, a tunnel used by airside vehicles is not quite the same risk as a public road. If you could put a bomb in an airside vehicle you could do all sorts of harm without needing a tunnel.

JCX BXC

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Such a bomb might not do much harm, but you'd have to close the runway while you investigated things.

Which involves a small financial cost for the airport/airlines? Minimal impact I'd imagine, the people who do these things set out to cause more damage. I can think of many different cheaper ways to close a runway than simply putting a bomb deep underneath it.

murphaph

I know of public roads passing under runways/taxiways in TXL and MUC. I expect it's common place.

Noxegon

I'm not sure I'd use TXL as an example of good airport design

Captain_Crash

murphaph wrote: »

I know of public roads passing under runways/taxiways in TXL and MUC. I expect it's common place.

There is also a road under 27R at LHR, and its the only way into Terminals 1 (now closed), 2 and 3.

Irish Steve

Yes, if we look at it now in hindsight, a tunnel could have been built under what is now 28, but the more likely reality is that it was in Aer Rianta's interest to get that road out of regular use, as there will come a time when the whole area around the old road (the area of the Boot Inn) will become part of the airside area of the airport, so reducing the traffic on that section of road was a strategic long term move that will make the subsequent closure of the remaining road a lot less of an issue that it would have been if it was a heavily used route. There's very little remaining in the section between the 16 threshold and the 10 threshold on that old road that's not in the DAA ownership, so it serves their interest for the old road to go out of use.

MICKEYG

Peregrine wrote: »

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

Thanks for all the info.
I wonder why the DAA are so quiet on all this. There is no dedicated section on the website to show all capital projects in the works (other than what they have for the Northern Runway).

The new transfer point looks like it will be for Pier E (400 gate passengers) only. Probably designed with transatlantic in mind.
For those transferring from the old Pier B (300 gates) it looks like the existing transfer facility will be used.
I wonder will the new bus transfer building (near the cargo area) use the new transfer facility as well?
One other point on this, is building the new holding gates near the cargo area not going to interfere with the proposed Pier F. Shades of the old Pier C being built then shortly abolished when building T2.

Jamie2k9

MICKEYG wrote: »

Thanks for all the info.
I wonder why the DAA are so quiet on all this. There is no dedicated section on the website to show all capital projects in the works (other than what they have for the Northern Runway).

The new transfer point looks like it will be for Pier E (400 gate passengers) only. Probably designed with transatlantic in mind.
For those transferring from the old Pier B (300 gates) it looks like the existing transfer facility will be used.
I wonder will the new bus transfer building (near the cargo area) use the new transfer facility as well?
One other point on this, is building the new holding gates near the cargo area not going to interfere with the proposed Pier F. Shades of the old Pier C being built then shortly abolished when building T2.

I could be completely wrong but I suspect the facility at 400 gates will be for US immigration security screening and processing. Its right next to the expanded USPC (+ stains down) area and with growing numbers and this will just aid that.

I can't see this bypassing the existing transfer/immigration points as they have lots of capacity and it's way to small.

LXFlyer

There is the capital expenditure submissions file on the Commission for Aviation Regulation's website that lists all of the capital projects that are currently planned.

Nothing hidden from anyone - you can easily do a search on Fingal CoCo website as well for all planning permissions.

MICKEYG

lxflyer wrote: »

There is the capital expenditure submissions file on the Commission for Aviation Regulation's website that lists all of the capital projects that are currently planned.

Nothing hidden from anyone - you can easily do a search on Fingal CoCo website as well for all planning permissions.

Not saying it is hidden, but no clarity on DAA site itself as to what they are planning. I would have thought they would publish this.

LXFlyer

MICKEYG wrote: »

Not saying it is hidden, but no clarity on DAA site itself as to what they are planning. I would have thought they would publish this.

To be fair most airports don't detail this kind of thing on their websites - they'll detail big ticket projects like terminals, piers and runways, but not individual capex items.

Avada

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

I could be completely wrong but I suspect the facility at 400 gates will be for US immigration security screening and processing. Its right next to the expanded USPC (+ stains down) area and with growing numbers and this will just aid that.

I can't see this bypassing the existing transfer/immigration points as they have lots of capacity and it's way to small.

As far as I know, this is replacing the existing transfer facility.

T1 really needs a transfer facility asap as well.

davebuck

Can anyone confirm what work has started on the following projects?

1. North runway Already started
2. Pier 100 extension ?
3. Pier 400 transfer facility ?
4. South apron temporary Pier ?
5. Pier 400 A380 gate ?

Any other major work/projects I've missed?

Thanks,

Captain_Crash

davebuck wrote: »

Can anyone confirm what work has started on the following projects?

1. North runway Already started
2. Pier 100 extension ?
3. Pier 400 transfer facility ?
4. South apron temporary Pier ?
5. Pier 400 A380 gate ?

1. North runway Already started, Technically yes.. as works to reroute some of the roads in the area have started
2. Pier 100 extension ? No
3. Pier 400 transfer facility ? No
4. South apron temporary Pier ? No, Permission has just been granted so will be sent to tender
5. Pier 400 A380 gate ? Contrary to popular belief, there are no plans for an A380 gate

embraer170

The planned "temporary" south pier sounds like a nightmare facility, and makes even Pier D a truly premium experience.

During the morning departure wave, we could see passengers from up to 9 aircraft (1500 people!) in what like a small waiting area with limited facilities. Let's not forget the bus transfer to/from the pier (knowing DUB this will be with undersized buses and undersized bus stops) and a walk across the ramp to the aircraft.

Based on the drawings, it looks to the same level as the Budapest Basic Gates.

Jamie2k9

embraer170 wrote: »

The planned "temporary" south pier sounds like a nightmare facility, and makes even Pier D a truly premium experience.

During the morning departure wave, we could see passengers from up to 9 aircraft (1500 people!) in what like a small waiting area with limited facilities. Let's not forget the bus transfer to/from the pier (knowing DUB this will be with undersized buses and undersized bus stops) and a walk across the ramp to the aircraft.

Based on the drawings, it looks to the same level as the Budapest Basic Gates.

You think Ryanair want fancy?

embraer170

You think Ryanair want fancy?

If you read the planning application, it suggests that it will be used by narrowbody aircraft presently parked at Pier 4. These would mostly be Aer Lingus aircraft, including those overnighting.

Jamie2k9

embraer170 wrote: »

If you read the planning application, it suggests that it will be used by narrowbody aircraft presently parked at Pier 4. These would mostly be Aer Lingus aircraft, including those overnighting.

Aer Lingus won't want anything to expensive either. There won't be 1,500 passengers in there at the same time. I think your making it a bigger deal than it is and remember passenger's won't be spending more than 30 minutes in there.

Peregrine

davebuck wrote: »

Can anyone confirm what work has started on the following projects?

1. North runway Already started
2. Pier 100 extension ?
3. Pier 400 transfer facility ?
4. South apron temporary Pier ?
5. Pier 400 A380 gate ?

Any other major work/projects I've missed?

Thanks,

1. North runway — Preparation work about to start
2. Pier 100 extension — Don't think so
3. Pier 400 transfer facility — No full planning permission yet
4. South apron temporary Pier — Permission received last week
5. Pier 400 A380 gate — None, I think

Captain_Crash wrote: »

5. Pier 400 A380 gate ? Contrary to popular belief, there are no plans for an A380 gate

No plans or no plans to build it in the near future? Because there are plans involving gate 424/426.

embraer170 wrote: »

During the morning departure wave, we could see passengers from up to 9 aircraft (1500 people!)

Jamie2k9

Peregrine wrote: »

1. North runway — Preparation work about to start
2. Pier 100 extension — Don't think so
3. Pier 400 transfer facility — No full planning permission yet
4. South apron temporary Pier — Permission received last week
5. Pier 400 A380 gate — None, I think


No plans or no plans to build it in the near future? Because I can show you the plans.

I'm also sure once morning peak of A320's (pre 8am) are gone it will be EIR instead of the bus rides around the airport today. You may see 5-6 other A320 flights up to lunch but not much more after that.

Captain_Crash

Peregrine wrote: »

No plans or no plans to build it in the near future? Because there are plans involving gate 424/426

No plans to build it in the near future, its not part of any current development timeline.

Yes you are correct there was plans drawn up, but they were more to see what could be made work as opposed to plans because they were building one. Several stands at Pier 4 will be closed (one at a time) over the next couple of years for renovation works... the stand EK and EY used to use is currently closed, once that's finished, the one next will be closed and so on from there.

embraer170

Peregrine wrote: »

How they come to that 900 passenger figure is a bit suspicious when you look at the details of the application:

"The peak departure occupancy of approximately 860 passengers is calculated on the basis of passengers for 8 No. on time flights plus passengers for a delayed flight being present in the PBZ during the morning departure only model. Spatial requirement calculations are based on peak occupancy in departure-only mode, providing 60% seating and 40% standing."

http://documents.fingalcoco.ie/NorthgatePublicDocs/00539292.pdf

860 passengers / 9 flights is only 95 passengers on each flight when in reality the pier will be used to overnight Aer Lingus A320s.

Knowing that each A320 carries 180 passengers, assuming a LF of 85%, and counting 9 flights, we already are at 1377 people that could use the terminal in a 1 hour period.

Jamie2k9

embraer170 wrote: »

How they come to that 900 passenger figure is a bit suspicious when you look at the details of the application:

"The peak departure occupancy of approximately 860 passengers is calculated on the basis of passengers for 8 No. on time flights plus passengers for a delayed flight being present in the PBZ during the morning departure only model. Spatial requirement calculations are based on peak occupancy in departure-only mode, providing 60% seating and 40% standing."

http://documents.fingalcoco.ie/NorthgatePublicDocs/00539292.pdf

860 passengers / 9 flights is only 95 passengers on each flight when in reality the pier will be used to overnight Aer Lingus A320s.

Knowing that each A320 carries 180 passengers, assuming a LF of 85%, and counting 9 flights, we already are at 1377 people that could use the terminal in a 1 hour period.

Airport capacity is usually based on load factors of 80-85% for short haul scheduled and 90% for charter and of course some exceptions which you can see at DUB.

There is 9 aircraft stands and 7 gates this been the key point here. It's about gates not parking stands as only 7 flights could depart at same time. The 950 average (suspect +- 50) and EI operate 174 seater A320 and rarely see 100% LF like all airlines so if you based it on 80% loads for 7 flights that's 980 in the same area provided all 7 flights were departing at the same time ie 06.05, 06.10, 06.15, 06.20 and so on.

In reality such scheduling won't happen simply because bus capacity and parking to off load them isn't there to support it. Like at all airports as passengers arrive into an area such as 400 gates now at peak times there is always some departing on aircraft.

trellheim

Did they apply for revised planning permission to deal with the larger quantity of flights with the new runway ? I remember reading here the planning permission came with a limit on the number of flights.

TA

Jamie2k9

trellheim wrote: »

Did they apply for revised planning permission to deal with the larger quantity of flights with the new runway ? I remember reading here the planning permission came with a limit on the number of flights.

TA

Not yet, likely by end of next year. IAA side only been set up to start implementing EU directive in new year

billie1b

Pier 100 extension has started, started a couple of weeks ago.

Shannon Control

The new tower is also due to commence next year. 87.9 meters tall, just one meter taller than Heathrow's (!).

Peregrine

Shannon Control wrote: »

The new tower is also due to commence next year. 87.9 meters tall, just one meter taller than Heathrow's (!).

That would be great news. The original STW proposal, I presume? Has planning permission til 2020.





Location map: http://documents.fingalcoco.ie/NorthgatePublicDocs/00360399.pdf
http://www.fingal.ie/planning-and-buildings/apply-or-search-for-a-planning-application/search-planning-applications-online/searchplanningapplicationsonline/ Ref: SID/01/09

Shannon Control

Peregrine wrote: »

That would be great news. The original STW proposal, I presume? Has planning permission til 2020.





Location map: http://documents.fingalcoco.ie/NorthgatePublicDocs/00360399.pdf
http://www.fingal.ie/planning-and-buildings/apply-or-search-for-a-planning-application/search-planning-applications-online/searchplanningapplicationsonline/ Ref: SID/01/09

Yes, it's still those same plans. Will be visible from the city. Also, I heard some people talking about a new control building - the IAA are keeping the current building and constructing a 'link' building with the new tower.

medoc

Shannon Control wrote: »

Yes, it's still those same plans. Will be visible from the city. Also, I heard some people talking about a new control building - the IAA are keeping the current building and constructing a 'link' building with the new tower.

Is that the actual existing tower showing in front of the new tower? Some difference in scale. I'm glad they have put a bit of thought into the new tower design. Something that stands out. The tower at Edinburgh has become a symbol for the entire airport for example.