Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

JCX BXC

Well, my point was you need both for a functional international airport with an intention to earn money. How much revenue is created in car parks, internal shops, etc.

You could then well have an airport with a great runway, but the terminal buildings and gates are wholly unfit for purpose and both airlines (no gates available) and passengers (nobody likes a nightmare experience) will be looking somewhere else.

BonkeyDonker

JCX BXC wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean there, the terminal is a massive part of an airport, especially with all the businesses and duty free located in them!

And good look getting airlines to fly to an airport without a terminal....Or taxiways.....Or stands

My point is you need access to the runway or your nice shiny terminal is basically a shopping center. At the moment you could argue that the terminal revenue offsets the need runway charges, but if you are a private entity operating your own terminal you will still need to pay to use the runway so no matter what the owner of the runway can call the shots to this access price.

The terminal operators are then stuck arguing with the airlines over how much extra, if any they wish to pay to use a particular terminal.

Pat Dunne

JCX BXC wrote: »

Well, my point was you need both for a functional international airport with an intention to earn money. How much revenue is created in car parks, internal shops, etc.

You could then well have an airport with a great runway, but the terminal buildings and gates are wholly unfit for purpose and both airlines (no gates available) and passengers (nobody likes a nightmare experience) will be looking somewhere else.

BonkeyDonker wrote: »

My point is you need access to the runway or your nice shiny terminal is basically a shopping center. At the moment you could argue that the terminal revenue offsets the need runway charges, but if you are a private entity operating your own terminal you will still need to pay to use the runway so no matter what the owner of the runway can call the shots to this access price.

The terminal operators are then stuck arguing with the airlines over how much extra, if any they wish to pay to use a particular terminal.

Egg, Chcken; Chicken, Egg?

Tenger

Next poster to report a post just because they disagree with the opinion expressed in it is getting a 1 week ban.
Express your opinions and debate like mature adults or go off to pprune

Korat

If T3 is really on the cards as per the map above then they'd need to get the ball rolling as soon as possible. I'd imagine objections to it are already prepared and ready to be lodged, if and when it's announced. There will likely be a long and expensive planning process before a sod is ever turned.

A light rail tunnel would definitely be needed to connect to the East terminals too, that alone could take years to even get off the drawing board.

yannakis

Korat wrote: »

A light rail tunnel would definitely be needed to connect to the East terminals too, that alone could take years to even get off the drawing board.

naah, get on the Metro to O'Connell, hop on the Aircoach to T3. Fixed. :P :pac: :rolleyes:

Irish Steve

yannakis wrote: »

naah, get on the Metro to O'Connell, hop on the Aircoach to T3. Fixed. :P :pac: :rolleyes:

Don't even joke about it, there are more than a few politicians that would see that as entirely appropriate and acceptable. That's why certain aspects of the way the airport is run is such a mess, the lack of joined up thinking about reliable mass transit access for both staff and passengers is seen as being only a peripheral issue.

plodder

Korat wrote: »

If T3 is really on the cards as per the map above then they'd need to get the ball rolling as soon as possible. I'd imagine objections to it are already prepared and ready to be lodged, if and when it's announced. There will likely be a long and expensive planning process before a sod is ever turned.

A light rail tunnel would definitely be needed to connect to the East terminals too, that alone could take years to even get off the drawing board.

Yeah, I wouldn't dismiss that Fingal plan. Everything that is currently happening, from the runway to the terminal hotel, and the office park is all on the plan. Any future terminal would have to go on the West side, which does present an access problem, assuming Metro North goes ahead. I suspect the answer would be a bus from the MN station out around the perimeter, which would take 10-15 minutes. Not ideal, but would work, short term. I presume an internal airside transit bus would also exist, that would be a lot quicker.

yannakis

plodder wrote: »

I suspect the answer would be a bus from the MN station out around the perimeter, which would take 10-15 minutes. Not ideal, but would work, short term.

The terminal wouldn't pop-up like a mushroom, so a short-term solution like that would basicaly be utter lack of planning. It will probably be under construction for 4-5 years - that's enought time to upgrade all infrustructure around it.

plodder

yannakis wrote: »

The terminal wouldn't pop-up like a mushroom, so a short-term solution like that would basicaly be utter lack of planning. It will probably be under construction for 4-5 years - that's enought time to upgrade all infrustructure around it.

It's not just a question of time. It's cost too. I'd be afraid that someone will use this as (yet) another reason to stall Metro North.

LXFlyer

yannakis wrote: »

The terminal wouldn't pop-up like a mushroom, so a short-term solution like that would basicaly be utter lack of planning. It will probably be under construction for 4-5 years - that's enought time to upgrade all infrustructure around it.

Terminal 1 has been there nearly fifty years - and still hasn't got proper infrastructure.

I don't necessarily share your optimism that we could suddenly solve access issues for a new one as quickly as you seem to think.

lucernarian

JCX BXC wrote: »

Well, my point was you need both for a functional international airport with an intention to earn money. How much revenue is created in car parks, internal shops, etc.

You could then well have an airport with a great runway, but the terminal buildings and gates are wholly unfit for purpose and both airlines (no gates available) and passengers (nobody likes a nightmare experience) will be looking somewhere else.

It's curious that your point about car parks isn't challenged (and I agree with it fyi). This despite all the hand-wringing when people rightfully claim that DAA don't care about Metro North as they wouldn't make money from it...

Irish Steve

moloner4 wrote: »

To deviate from above, a quick question. With the new runway going ahead will the traveller camp at the back of the airport need to be closed?

Must be the week for controversial subjects:D. There's probably no simple answer to that, I suspect it will very much depend on the agreements that are in place between the land owner (which may not be DAA) and the residents, as well as any constraints on Fingal CC in relation to the number of pitches they have in their area.

I don't know if any of the land will impinge on safety zones for the new runway, or if DAA will need to use any of the land for other purposes like aerials or internal roadways.

There may also be issues with the security of the airfield relating to the perimeter fence, which has been being upgraded over recent times in different areas, the sections around that area are still not as secure as some other areas now are.

Given the value of land in the airport area, there is also the very real consideration that at some stage, that land is going to be wanted for services that are airport related, which will generate a much higher return than the present usage will be doing.

Gaoth Laidir

The camp has to go. It is already impinging on the work that has been carried out. Railings all around it. I also wouldn't like to be living there as a heavy spools up for takeoff a few metres away.

MJohnston

Irish Steve wrote: »

There may also be issues with the security of the airfield relating to the perimeter fence, which has been being upgraded over recent times in different areas, the sections around that area are still not as secure as some other areas now are.

On this, I was out for a cycle round the airport recently and there are some really easily accessible parts of the perimeter. I was amazed, I though that stuff would be locked up tight!

billie1b

MJohnston wrote: »

On this, I was out for a cycle round the airport recently and there are some really easily accessible parts of the perimeter. I was amazed, I though that stuff would be locked up tight!

There's lads that if running late for work that live in Ridgewood can access through the perimeter fence onto the perimeter road and get picked up in a crew van on it

rushfan

billie1b wrote:

There's lads that if running late for work that live in Ridgewood can access through the perimeter fence onto the perimeter road and get picked up in a crew van on it

Interesting one this. Can you elaborate or be more specific? Where exactly do these lads access through the perimeter fence?

sparrowcar

billie1b wrote: »

There's lads that if running late for work that live in Ridgewood can access through the perimeter fence onto the perimeter road and get picked up in a crew van on it

I'm also curious about this claim?
I would also suggest that the DOT, DAA, Gardai among others would be interested.

CoisFharraige

rushfan wrote: »

Interesting one this. Can you elaborate or be more specific? Where exactly do these lads access through the perimeter fence?

Don't try to hide your curiosity whatever you do

I wouldn't imagine that this is the place to discuss a breach in an airport's perimeter fence.

rushfan

CoisFharraige wrote:

I wouldn't imagine that this is the place to discuss a breach in an airport's perimeter fence.

Neither would I. But billie has gone to ground on the matter. Would love to hear specifically where he's referring to.

sparrowcar

rushfan wrote: »

Neither would I. But billie has gone to ground on the matter. Would love to hear specifically where he's referring to.

What's even more concerning is that if memory services me right that billie works in the airport and the info might be accurate.

billie1b

sparrowcar wrote: »

What's even more concerning is that if memory services me right that billie works in the airport and the info might be accurate.

Very accurate, also being a supervisor it has been reported by myself and a few others but I for one will not be revealing the exact location of where it has happened on an internet forum, I've more respect for the security of my work place than others might think.

rushfan

billie1b wrote:

Very accurate, also being a supervisor it has been reported by myself and a few others but I for one will not be revealing the exact location of where it has happened on an internet forum, I've more respect for the security of my work place than others might think.

Therefore it's just another unsubstantiated claim . Lads from Ridgewood accessing through the perimeter fence indeed!!!!

Irish Steve

A very long time ago, (nearly 15 years), during one of the regular acrimonious disputes between SIPTU and Servisair, a number of ramp staff that had been locked out took an unofficial route over a fence close to Hangar 6 in order to picket on the ramp. They only did it once, as the Airport Police took a very strong line against the perpetrators, and "suitable changes" were made after the event to prevent a repeat. At the time, the fence in that area did not represent a significant obstacle to entry, and it was not an easily observed area, both of those shortcomings were changed not longer after the event, it is no longer be possible to gain access via that area.

In recent years, much of the perimeter fence on the southern side of the airport has been upgraded, both in terms of height and structure, there has not been quite the same degree of change on the North side, probably because of the massive changes that will happen with the construction of 28R, and I would be surprised if we don't see some very much changed fencing appear over the next few months, now that the site works have started.

sparrowcar

billie1b wrote: »

Very accurate, also being a supervisor it has been reported by myself and a few others but I for one will not be revealing the exact location of where it has happened on an internet forum, I've more respect for the security of my work place than others might think.

I wouldn't expect you would for one minute and here certainly wouldn't be the place.

As a manager in the airport I would be on the look out for things like this. I find it hard to believe nobody you reported this too has taken it further?

If you want to send me a PM I will verify who I am and I can get this investigated/escalate this further.

TheFitz13

https://www.dublinairport.com/latest-news/detail/record-2.2-million-passengers-in-march

2.2m pax in March

jamo2oo9

TheFitz13 wrote: »

https://www.dublinairport.com/latest-news/detail/record-2.2-million-passengers-in-march

2.2m pax in March

Impressive seeing that Easter was in March last year!

davebuck

Any photos or updates from the work on the North runway prep works package it all seems to have gone very quiet also has the contractor been selected yet for the main runway construction?

Open Up

https://twitter.com/DublinAirport/status/854026793615065089?s=09

Good representation of preparatory works so far...

paddyboeing

Sorry if this has already been asked, but will the new runway mean an end to the threshold of Runway 16 where the planes fly overhead, the road down to the Boot Inn and the road down to Keeling's Fruit Farm?