Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Options
1242243245247248293

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 374 ✭✭dublincc2


    May restrict development. Ballymun has completely transformed for example.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,978 ✭✭✭EchoIndia


    Crosswinds are much less of an issue with today's jets - witness how rarely operations shift to 16/34 nowadays. The Iength of 10R/28L should not longer be an issue, were it not for the planning permission constraints applied to the North Runway for easterly ops in particular. That's not DAA's doing.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,867 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    I definitely agree with the point about Corballis. But the situation is well past blame about that, and bringing up 05/23 isn't relevant to the debate.


    Lets all stick to the point on this.



  • Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭dublin12367


    Is there an actual condition in the planning of north runway that’s states easterly operations aren’t allowed or should be minimal? That’s nearly an even more ridiculous condition than the night restriction.

    Basically, you can have new runway which will cost 300 odd million but you can’t use it at night and can only use it in normal operations one direction, and you must reduce night flights off of the south runway. Lot to answer for there.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,978 ✭✭✭EchoIndia


    Lobbying by the sensitive residents of Malahide and Portmarnock seems to have swayed the planners as regards use of 10L for departures. Presumably the full PP is online somewhere for those who want to consult it in full.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭dublin12367


    Thank you. Just read it. Says either 28L or R can be used for departures but 28L shall be the preferred for arrivals and 10R shall be the preferred for departures when easterly. So I suppose it’s not too limiting and both could be used if necessary, that’s from my interpretation of it. Could be wrong.

    Would have also thought the residents of Malahide and Portmarnock wouldn’t be too bad for complaining due to the south runway heading passed them both previously, albeit nearly 2km more to the south, so they’d be somewhat used to it. Guess I’m wrong there 😂



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,978 ✭✭✭EchoIndia


    I've heard ATC refuse 10L for departure (AA B789 to DFW), so in reality there is a strict segregation of activity as between the two runways when dual ops are in force - to date anyway.



  • Registered Users Posts: 374 ✭✭dublincc2


    05/23 and extended 11/29 would’ve been the best long term solution. With 16/34 in reserve.

    T2 should’ve been put where the hangars/McDonald’s is on the exit road out of the airport; would’ve made for far easier taxiways to the runways.

    But that would’ve made too much sense. Based Michael O’Leary warned the DAA it would be a disaster and he was right. Corballis House destroyed to build a terminal building on the wrong side of the airport is a key example of DAA inefficiency.



  • Registered Users Posts: 374 ✭✭dublincc2


    There is still hope that 05/23 could be reopened. Demolish Pier D and relocate the stands around the corner near hangar 6, resurface the strip and Bob’s your uncle. 10/28L/R will still handle the majority of traffic but the alternative is there.

    When 05/23 reopens, the flight path inbound would seem to be less of a hassle. You are coming in from the northeast over lightly populated Donabate/Portrane and then over Airside. Outbound would be more of a problem but the area around Finglas and D15 is already used to air traffic so departures from the reopened 05/23 wouldn’t be that much of a change.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,978 ✭✭✭EchoIndia


    Keep hoping then!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭dublin12367


    I’m loving the sarcasm. At least I hope it’s sarcasm.



  • Registered Users Posts: 374 ✭✭dublincc2


    What makes you think it’s sarcasm? I have already explained that 05/23 is more in line with the prevailing winds. I don’t expect it to be reopened anytime soon, but in the next 2-3 decades it should be looked at.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭IngazZagni


    Absolutely zero chance of this ever happening for a multitude of reasons. New heavily populated centres that would be directly in line of these runways. The inefficiency that comes with runways that diverge and converge and the increased separation requirements. The destruction of over 20 gates in a relatively new part of the terminal for hundreds of millions of euro minimum for no net gain of stands. Crosswind limitations are rarely a factor these days for modern airlines in Dublin. It's just a non runner.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,723 ✭✭✭Economics101


    05/23 and the old 10/28 would have intersected. WHat do you think that would have done to capacity? Takeoffs from 23 and landings on 05 went right over Ballymun. A lot worse than a few hourse in open country NW of Dublin Airport.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,723 ✭✭✭Economics101




  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Steve


    05/23 was closed a very long time ago, and with the subsequent development that's happened in the Finglas area, and in the approach area over Swords, reopening it would be a can of worms that would go way beyond the present problems, for all sorts of valid safety reasons.

    There are also more than a few issues around the changes that would be needed in the terminal structure to facilitate it, and then there are a whole load of issues relating to the implications of trying to use 23 and 28R at the same time.

    An even bigger issue would be working out how to facilitate aircraft movements on the ground if they were to try and rebuild, it's more than messy as it is, even more restrictions would be an unmitigated nightmare, and the loss of stands would also cause huge issues, they need more stands, more readily accessible, not less, and the timescale for opening 05/23 would be a lot longer than would be tolerable.

    The reality is that for all sorts of reasons, reopening of 05/23 won't be happening any time soon, if ever, the mix of aircraft operating in Dublin now is very different to what was operating when 05/23 was operational, and most of them are much larger than they were back then, and have very different cross wind performance capabilities. In the long term the central area between the two parallel runways is going to have to be brought into the picture, and possibly the area to the north of the North runway, and 05/23 would make some of those potential change very complex or even impossible.


    MOD NOTE: We need to live in the reality of what's possible, not in the world of unreality, PLEASE MOVE ON FROM THE 05/23 DISCUSSION.

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



  • Registered Users Posts: 374 ✭✭dublincc2


    OK, moving away from 05/23 I noticed you mentioned the central area between the runways, if this is developed what happens to the Boot Inn?



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,465 ✭✭✭✭cson


    CPO.

    Future expansion should really happen in the airport midfield with underground transit similar to LHR, ATL, IAD etc.

    I don't think DUB has the room for an AMS style U shaped agglomeration of terminals.



  • Registered Users Posts: 374 ✭✭dublincc2


    Nope. They can’t demolish the Boot Inn. That would be Nelson’s Pillar/ESB Fitzwilliam Street tier architectural destruction. 10x worse than Corballis House.

    The Boot has been around for centuries. If this does happen the building could left standing airside within the perimeter, maybe as an office/canteen for airport police/ATC or something.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭IngazZagni


    A CPO means compulsory purchase. It doesn't mean it would be demolished. I don't know if it has any preservation order. To be honest I'm surprised it's still open but happy it is. I'm sure any future expansion could be built around it anyway although it would almost definitely have to close to the public.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,978 ✭✭✭EchoIndia


    This article is not too recent but dates the Boot Inn as being built in 1593.

    https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Airport+put+this+sleepy+village+to+flight+..but+they+can%27t+put+boot...-a0103970042



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,978 ✭✭✭EchoIndia




  • Registered Users Posts: 68,900 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    I'm almost certain the DAA already own the Boot Inn, bought it off a broke property developer in the crash. However I now can't find any reference to that online.



  • Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭dublin12367


    Should we expect a result by end of week? Sorry edit to this, wouldn’t be too familiar with the courts myself.

    they stay that has be granted means that the enforcement order is void until the high court review in November?

    Would that be correct?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,535 ✭✭✭Noxegon




  • Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭dublin12367


    And if ABP come back in the meantime and grant Dublin the noise quota system rather than 65 limit between 11pm and 7am does the above get thrown out of court?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,769 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    As far as I know ABP supersedes FCC so if that happens then the DAA can withdraw their complaint citing ABP’s resolution of the matter. If that happens the onus would be on FCC to lodge an appeal to the HC and not the DAA (which is the case currently)



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,900 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    If ABP refuse the appeal, the planning condition that the enforcement order is under will cease to exist.

    Residents may take a judicial review; realistically incinerating more money as it won't succeed.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,769 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    Yeah pretty much, the case is then withdrawn and it’s up to FCC then to bring a new case to the HC appealing ABP’s decision (I’m not 100% sure they even can do that, considering ABP’s remit as a higher adjudicator than FCC regarding planning issues to begin with?!? I’ll have to look that up)

    The residents can of course but like you say…. It’s just burning their own money



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭dublin12367


    Thanks all for the responses. I’d be confident in ABP granting the quota, if they have any sense.


    however regarding the residents, I seen a go fund me online where they have raised over €100,000 to for legal matters against the daa. I was shocked they had raised so much. What a waste!!



Advertisement