Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

AndyBoBandy

The thing is though IAG would probably only need to sell a few (if they were forced to), and transfer some around to its BA/IBeria fleet, leaving EI just a few slots of their own.

I guess my point was (even if the slots are worth considerably less (let's say €100m-€200m) and they've no intention of selling them), IAG still got Aer Lingus for a steal (how much of the EI metal do EI actually own? And what's it's rough value? Plus the cash in the bank?).

It's win win all the way for IAG and I bet they want to squeeze as much value out of every € they spend at any airport, not just DUB, while spending as little as possible on it (just look at AerClub).

Didn't want to drag the thread too far off topic, but DUB is EI's bread, butter & desert, and it's one relationship they could do without straining by making demands for things that other airlines won't or can't get.

Cloudio9

Didn't want to start a new thread but just wanted to confirm if I check in and do security T1 I can go to T2 airside?

billie1b

Cloudio9 wrote: »

Didn't want to start a new thread but just wanted to confirm if I check in and do security T1 I can go to T2 airside?

Yes, follow the signs for the 400 gates

Jamie2k9

Dublinflyer wrote: »

Yep the spin is strong at the moment. It's been about 2 years since I worked in the airport but I always felt the relationship between the daa and EI was steadily deteriorating. I think it was a case of EI getting more and more demanding and the daa caring less about them and more about the US and gulf carriers. When T2 was getting built the daa promised the stars to EI if they moved into it and now they are just another carrier in there.

daa have done a lot for Aer Lingus and in return, USPC been the single biggest one (yes not all daa!). I don't buy the argument at all, they moved EY out, QR out and CX will unlikely operate from there. EK are only flying 2 daily and not at busy times. If anything if they ever go 3 daily the daa will encourage them to move to T1. US airlines have had a lot of growth in recent years but you can be sure Norwegian are the catalyst for the latest row.

and rightfully so in my opinion, EI should not be entitled to preferential treatment at DUB. No airline should, they should all be treated as equals.

The more and more that airlines show EI up for what they are (average at best), with better services, the more EI will have to reflect on themselves, and how they've 'fallen' since the IAG takeover. (4 star my ar$e)

But with that being said, I doubt Willie & the IAG board give a flying f**k about the reputation of one of their minor airlines!!
(when is the 5 year moratorium on LHR slots up?)
(They got EI for an absolute steal (€1.4Bn minus the €700m EI had in the bank, minus the €600-€700m value on the LHR slots alone))

Not strictly preferential treatment however a bigger say in their main terminal isn't a lot to ask. The problem is EI would be happy to get rid of some customers out of T2 which would benefit them massively.
_____

As for the LHR slots, if the likes of IB, BA needed them they could of purchased extra ones lat yea but EI did instead.

Bussywussy

The road realignment around Forrest little looks like it's at finishing stage....there's another new road at the right turn after keeling's for st Margaret's...

plodder

Bussywussy wrote: »

The road realignment around Forrest little looks like it's at finishing stage....there's another new road at the right turn after keeling's for st Margaret's...

The Forrest rd. junction is finished and open. I used it today. Nice improvement to the road with a proper turn right filter.

The St. Margaret's junction is nearly there but it looks like it needs another few days. But that will be a big benefit to traffic coming out from the St Margaret's village side. You can be left waiting for quite a while in the mornings at that spot.

Bussywussy

plodder wrote: »

The Forrest rd. junction is finished and open. I used it today. Nice improvement to the road with a proper turn right filter.

The St. Margaret's junction is nearly there but it looks like it needs another few days. But that will be a big benefit to traffic coming out from the St Margaret's village side. You can be left waiting for quite a while in the mornings at that spot.

used it earlier, i turn right before the new junction for ward cross,there's another new small road in there

Rojomur

There is a good bit of groundwork around the new site of the new Air traffic control tower. Looks like this is progressing well.

ozzy jr

Is there a map anywhere in this thread that shows the finished road layout?

Will the road along where the Boot pub is continue around the new runway, similar to the way the road goes around the current runway, or is it going to be a dead end?

EchoIndia

ozzy jr wrote: »

Will the road along where the Boot pub is continue around the new runway, similar to the way the road goes around the current runway...?

Yes, that's what the works currently in progress are providing for.

Rojomur

Theres a link back in post #2422 and #2424.

yannakis

Rojomur wrote: »

Theres a link back in post #2422 and #2424.

FTFY :pac:

J6P

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/challenge-to-new-329m-runway-plan-at-dublin-airport-opens-in-high-court-808359.html

Challenge to new €329m runway plan at Dublin Airport opens in High Court

jamo2oo9

J6P wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/challenge-to-new-329m-runway-plan-at-dublin-airport-opens-in-high-court-808359.html

They allege the development is illegal and that Fingal Council failed to consider or address their concerns about its effect on their homes and lands.

You buy a house beside an airport and you expect everything to be cushty but complain about noise and land values the moment you move in?

Absolute knob gobblers...

Blut2

I would have sympathy for any home-owners who had an airport suddenly open next to them. But DUB opened in 1940 and has been handling high numbers of commercial flights since the 1950s. I'd be shocked if there was a single one of those complaining about noise who moved in before that, ie 70+ years ago now in 2017. Its the most ridiculous level of NIMBY-ism and I hope the courts strike it down ASAP.

Irish Steve

Blut2 wrote: »

........... Its the most ridiculous level of NIMBY-ism and I hope the courts strike it down ASAP.

Indeed, and even more so given the massive reduction in noise that's now the norm. If Dublin was still handling things like 707's, DC8's, the early 747's, or 737-200's, 1-11's and MD83's, which were serious noise makers, or 727's, which in some cases had the climb capability of a soggy brick, they might have a case, but given that DAA have offered very high grants or buy outs, at this stage, I'd have little or no sympathy for some of these supposed "victims".

Tenger

Blut2 wrote: »

I would have sympathy for any home-owners who had an airport suddenly open next to them. But DUB opened in 1940 and has been handling high numbers of commercial flights since the 1950s. I'd be shocked if there was a single one of those complaining about noise who moved in before that, ie 70+ years ago now in 2017. Its the most ridiculous level of NIMBY-ism and I hope the courts strike it down ASAP.

I would agree with you on the timeframe. In my opinion any purchase after 1975-1980 should be seen as an acceptance of the noise in the area. (All those B707s, B747s, DC10s, B727s and early B737s)
However there are a handful of families in close proximity to the airport which are living in multi-generational homes. I'm not sure how many count under this timeframe but I'm sure fattes will be willing to give us a close estimate, as he has previously stated that his family have lived there for 100s of years.

billie1b

I’ll gladly swap my house with anyone in close proximity to the airport thats complaining about noise, i’m that used to hearing planes take off and land now I don’t even notice the noise

plodder

J6P wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/challenge-to-new-329m-runway-plan-at-dublin-airport-opens-in-high-court-808359.html

Challenge to new €329m runway plan at Dublin Airport opens in High Court

I wouldn't bet money on any of those actions succeeding. Having said that, I have a degree of sympathy for residents. I don't think you can compare the level of traffic today with the 1940's or '50s. Night time arrivals are a nuisance. Though I live under the approach for runway 16 myself and hear the arrivals all times of night. It's not such a big problem that I'd want to stop the project; I think what the DAA is doing with their community fund is an appropriate way of providing compensation to the communities affected.

Rojomur

This is from an article in Independent today......

Dublin Airport spokesperson said:

"Dublin Airport is managed in the best interests of the Irish economy to grow connectivity and to meet the needs of all of its airline customers rather than just one.

"Dublin Airport is currently investing about €100 million per year to upgrade its facilities and we will shortly present proposals for an enhanced an investment programme to our airline customers for consultation. As part of our investment in new capacity a new boarding gate area will open later this year, which will be used by Aer Lingus flights among others.

"We welcome Aer Lingus’ decision to launch a new Dublin-Philadelphia service next year and to continue to expand its overall transatlantic business at Dublin Airport.

Are these gates the new ones that are accessed via bus from east of the 400 gates in T2?

J6P

https://www.irishlegal.com/8814/second-of-three-challenges-against-proposed-second-runway-at-dublin-airport-opens/

According to counsel, the council said it did not have to consider the residents’ submissions as part of any application to extend the planning permission and returned a cheque they included so their submissions could be considered as part of the DAA’s extension application.

This meant his clients, who are significantly affected by the proposed runway, had been “shut out” and “excluded from the process”, he said.

As a result, the residents have brought a challenge against the council’s decision to extend the permission.

The action, which is the second of three challenges to be heard in sequence by Mr Justice Max Barrett, has been brought by 22 individual residents – most with addresses at Kilreesk Lane, St Margaret’s, Co Dublin.

Fattes

Tenger wrote: »

I would agree with you on the timeframe. In my opinion any purchase after 1975-1980 should be seen as an acceptance of the noise in the area. (All those B707s, B747s, DC10s, B727s and early B737s)
However there are a handful of families in close proximity to the airport which are living in multi-generational homes. I'm not sure how many count under this timeframe but I'm sure fattes will be willing to give us a close estimate, as he has previously stated that his family have lived there for 100s of years.

Not sure if the exact numbers but roughly on the east side R132 you have 3 very long term residents families who have lived there since before the RAF started to develop the original al airstrip and some who would have been born in the 30's and early 40's. One of which is up for sale (nothing to do with the airport funnily)

You would have probably 50-60% of the properties on the west side St Margret's etc in the same position. You have to remember there were many active farms around the airport as late as the early 90's. There is still an active dairy farm near the boot inn.

A lot of the residents have no rea issue with the 2nd runway. Most object to the demands from the DAA to rail road in and overturn planning restrictions that were part of the original PP

I do find it funny that people dismiss all complaints as nimbisium. We have lodged no objection, however we have raised concerns in relation to how the DAA are looking for a license that would be the most liberal in Europe, while claiming it is similar to what other airports have.

Heathrow, Schipol, CDG, etc all operate with restrictions and quiet hours, the DAA are demanding they should not have too, anybody care to venture a genuine reason why they should get those preferential conditions?

The runway is needed and the sooner it is up and running the better, but the airport has to operate to best international practice and can not be given a free reign on quite hours

Brian CivilEng

Fattes wrote: »

Heathrow, Schipol, CDG, etc all operate with restrictions and quiet hours, the DAA are demanding they should not have too, anybody care to venture a genuine reason why they should get those preferential conditions?

It is Dublin's westerly location which makes the situation different. For an aircraft to arrive in central Europe before business hours (9am), with a minimum 1 hour flight and 1 hour time difference it must depart before 7am. Schiphol, CDG etc. are on CET. Heathrow is about 45mins closer to Central Europe. Aircraft from these airports can depart after 7am and still reach their short haul destinations before 9am. Hence applying the same time restriction to Dublin is more punitive than to these other airports.

Jamie2k9

Fattes wrote: »

Tenger wrote: »

I would agree with you on the timeframe. In my opinion any purchase after 1975-1980 should be seen as an acceptance of the noise in the area. (All those B707s, B747s, DC10s, B727s and early B737s)
However there are a handful of families in close proximity to the airport which are living in multi-generational homes. I'm not sure how many count under this timeframe but I'm sure fattes will be willing to give us a close estimate, as he has previously stated that his family have lived there for 100s of years.

Not sure if the exact numbers but roughly on the east side R132 you have 3 very long term residents families who have lived there since before the RAF started to develop the original al airstrip and some who would have been born in the 30's and early 40's. One of which is up for sale (nothing to do with the airport funnily)

You would have probably 50-60% of the properties on the west side St Margret's etc in the same position. You have to remember there were many active farms around the airport as late as the early 90's. There is still an active dairy farm near the boot inn.

A lot of the residents have no rea issue with the 2nd runway. Most object to the demands from the DAA to rail road in and overturn planning restrictions that were part of the original PP

I do find it funny that people dismiss all complaints as nimbisium. We have lodged no objection, however we have raised concerns in relation to how the DAA are looking for a license that would be the most liberal in Europe, while claiming it is similar to what other airports have.

Heathrow, Schipol, CDG, etc all operate with restrictions and quiet hours, the DAA are demanding they should not have too, anybody care to venture a genuine reason why they should get those preferential conditions?

The runway is needed and the sooner it is up and running the better, but the airport has to operate to best international practice and can not be given a free reign on quite hours

The planning restrictions mean less flights can operate than today between those hours.

I don't think there will be a significant increase in flight activity between 00.00-05.00.

Probably will be a few a modest 05.00-06.00.

If the restrictions were more realistic with flight numbers and/or open to regular reviews then perhaps the daa might not be so bothered.

The difference in Europe is those airports have 50,000-100,000 living directly in the flight path and in many cities just off the end of the runway. Very different to DUB.

Irish Steve

There is also the issue of the Trans Atlantic flights, which arrive a lot earlier than similar departure time flights arrive at places like Heathrow or further east, and if Dublin is to develop the hub concept further, the connecting flights onward to other places in the UK and Europe have to leave relatively soon afterwards if they are to have an acceptable advantage.

I still find it amazing that an Island with a population that's not much different from Birmingham can support the number of flights in and out of the airports that it does. The good thing is that the noise levels of those flights have decreased massively with the removal from use of older types like the MD83, 1-11 and 737-200, all of which were window rattlers. I suppose we should be thankful that there were never any VC10 operations from Ireland, and can you image the implications if Concorde had been a regular visitor to Dublin?

Captain_Crash

Fattes wrote: »

Heathrow, Schipol, CDG, etc all operate with restrictions and quiet hours, the DAA are demanding they should not have too, anybody care to venture a genuine reason why they should get those preferential conditions?

Fun fact, Legally, there is no curfew at Heathrow. Its a non binding agreement between the airport, residents and London city council regarding LHR’s operating hours (which is what DUB is proposing). If someone wants to depart after the “curfew” then they need permission from ATC, which happens every night. There are no flights scheduled between those hours however.

I read a piece a while ago about noise pollution at DUB and that the issues with noise are actually caused by aircraft waiting to take off with engines running and not aircraft landing/taking off. Something which will be eliminated if the new runway can be used an hour earlier

Open Up

There are new stands.

Locker10a

Open Up wrote: »

There are new stands.

When do these open ?

Open Up

Locker10a wrote: »

When do these open ?

They're open now on the South Apron. I've seen Norwegian on them a couple of times between flights.

Open Up

moloner4 wrote: »

They are new passenger gates and building yes, but not stands. I got bussed out to these stands before where the aircraft already have been on stands.

Only difference is now you'll get bused out earlier and wait in the new building rather than the terminal.

There are new stands. The apron now extends down to the WFS facility where there were no stands or apron previously.