Why isn't Baldonnel a commercial airport?

themarcus

I've been reading a few bits and pieces about baldonnel/casment(which do we call it?) and was wondering why it hasn't been discussed more as a competitor to Dublin airport since Tony Ryan in the '90s?

Before anyone says Dublin City can't support two airports please bear in mind that there are 5 airports operating on the west coast. London City airport serves about 4m (not 100% sure on this, but I think I'm more or less right) passengers per annum and seems to get by fine. Similarly Leeds Bradford serves 3m per annum. Dublin airport is currently serving 23m per annum. A competing airport would surely do just fine with Ryanair sure to jump at the opportunity.

I realise the runways are a little short, but surely buying up sufficient land to extend them wouldn't be prohibitive given the potential revenue?

I'm very curious to know what people think of this....

Fratton Fred

I am very surprised it hasn't been spoken of more regularly to be honest. Not only would it free up capacity at Dublin airport, but it would also make a huge difference to the traffic on the M50 and through Dublin.

Put a rail link into Heuston and Bob's your uncle as far as i can see.

Mr Benevolent

Firstly, Baldonnell is the arse end of nowhere. Can you imagine all of the airports passengers having to go through the city centre to get to it?

Secondly, having two large airports right beside each other is madness, especially when you realise how bad the IAA are at doing anything logical.

Thirdly it's a military base. They won't take kindly to sharing their airspace with lowly civilians.

But mainly it's just pettymindedness and a lack of a good transport system.

robinph

Baldonnell is no more in the arse end of nowhere than Dublin Airport is, both the same distance from the city centre and probably less effort for them to redirect an existing rail line to link up with a commercial aiport there. Baldonnell would certainly have easier access for the rest of the country as well due to it's location.

DOCARCH

Confab wrote: »

Firstly, Baldonnell is the arse end of nowhere. Can you imagine all of the airports passengers having to go through the city centre to get to it?

Ehhh.....not much different to Dublin Airport then!

At least the Laus will be (one of these days) will make it to Citywest - only a stones through away. As for the military base bit - a very underused miltary base. They should have moved all the Air Corps to Gormanstown and freed up Baldonnel for civil purposes.

Having said all that - I live under the flightpath to Baldonnel so no thanks!

Fratton Fred

There are also lots of "Military" airports in use as commecial airports. I'm not sure I would call Baldonnel military anyway, its not like they have a major stash of surface to air missiles there or anything.

The aircorp don't keep that many planes and helicoptors there, in fact, I'm surprised they can justify it's existance based on what few aircraft they do have. Opening it up to commercial use would greatly reduce the cost to the tax payer and maybe free up a bit of funds for the Air corp as well.

themarcus

Confab wrote: »

Firstly, Baldonnell is the arse end of nowhere. Can you imagine all of the airports passengers having to go through the city centre to get to it?

It really isn't the arse-end of nowhere. One of the benefits would be that people wouldn't have to go through the city if they were coming from the south side or from the south-east.

Confab wrote: »

Secondly, having two large airports right beside each other is madness, especially when you realise how bad the IAA are at doing anything logical.

Why is it madness? Population density is highest in Dublin - its where demand is. Two airports beside one another will compete - so Dublin airport will start to lose business if it doesn't shape up!
Re the IAA - how difficult could it be to stop them crashing into one another? Even if they are bad (I don't know myself) they couldn't hold it back too much

Confab wrote: »

Thirdly it's a military base. They won't take kindly to sharing their airspace with lowly civilians.

[sarcasm]I'm sure they can find somewhere else to launch their important missions...[/sarcasm]
Besides they need more funding for the army, so sale of this would be very nice for them.

Confab wrote: »

But mainly it's just pettymindedness and a lack of a good transport system.

Couldn't agree more...

DOCARCH

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There are also lots of "Military" airports in use as commecial airports. I'm not sure I would call Baldonnel military anyway, its not like they have a major stash of surface to air missiles there or anything.

The aircorp don't keep that many planes and helicoptors there, in fact, I'm surprised they can justify it's existance based on what few aircraft they do have. Opening it up to commercial use would greatly reduce the cost to the tax payer and maybe free up a bit of funds for the Air corp as well.

I actually think that one reason Baldonnel is still there is that it's a handy spot for the Government jet - don't have to deal with rabble, etc.

Another very good reason for not opening up Baldonnel is that the weather conditions there are more severe than Dublin AP - given it's proximity to the Dublin Mountains, it is prone to more severe winds and gusts than Dublin AP is. Dublin AP is surrounded for miles by flat land thus lessening wind gusts.

All you have to do is look at this http://www.met.ie/climate/30year-averages.asp and compare wind statistics for both Baldonnel and Dublin AP

themarcus

DOCARCH wrote: »

Having said all that - I live under the flightpath to Baldonnel so no thanks!

Not necessarily bad - do you like airplanes?

jmayo

Confab wrote: »

Firstly, Baldonnell is the arse end of nowhere. Can you imagine all of the airports passengers having to go through the city centre to get to it?

Secondly, having two large airports right beside each other is madness, especially when you realise how bad the IAA are at doing anything logical.

Thirdly it's a military base. They won't take kindly to sharing their airspace with lowly civilians.

But mainly it's just pettymindedness and a lack of a good transport system.

Do you know where Baldonnel is ?
Baldonnell is probably better suited to more people arriving from the south/southeast/southwest of the country and anyone from the south side of Dublin city/suburbs.
Just as easy probably to get to from Maynooth Westerly direction as well.
Dublin airport is only suited to people in the city North of the Liffey, people arriving from Cavan/Navan or those travelling down the M1.

Unless somebody built a railline to Dublin airport over the last couple of days, transport to Baldonnel is no better or worse than to Dublin airport.
Just divert a few buses and you have exactly the same links :rolleyes:

Sadly most of us that get to the airport get their by car.

It is not upto the IAA whether it would be turned into a commerical airport.
It would be a politcal decision.
Note former taoiseach was from de North side and it was not in his interest to take away from North Dublin to help Mary Harneys constituents :rolleyes:

The Air Corps would have to toe the line, they are still under the control of the government.

Fratton Fred

DOCARCH wrote: »

I actually think that one reason Baldonnel is still there is that it's a handy spot for the Government jet - don't have to deal with rabble, etc.

Another very good reason for not opening up Baldonnel is that the weather conditions there are more severe than Dublin AP - given it's proximity to the Dublin Mountains, it is prone to more severe winds and gusts than Dublin AP is. Dublin AP is surrounded for miles by flat land thus lessening wind gusts.

All you have to do is look at this http://www.met.ie/climate/30year-averages.asp and compare wind statistics for both Baldonnel and Dublin AP

That's a good point. I worked at Citywest for a couple of years and it does get pretty gusty up there.

It is probably too close to Dublin for Ryanair anyway, they would want to call it Carlow International or something:D

DOCARCH

themarcus wrote: »

Not necessarily bad - do you like airplanes?

I love airplanes.....but if I wanted to live under a flightpath, I'd move to Portmarnock (no offence intended - just fact)

Neworder79

Here's a map for the geographically challenged...

fireplace1982

Did someone say move the air corps to gormo? Ever been to gormo? Your chance of operating a GIV, a Lear Jet, Two CASAs, A beechcraft, 6 Aw139s, four Ec135s (including GASU), a defender, 8 PC9Ms, and 6 cessnas are slim to say the least.

Bal could be shared with civvie aircraft (aldergrove for example)but it would require major investment to build terminals, and airside facilities never mind extending the runways. If it were ever to happen, it would have happened prior to 'the crunch'

themarcus

fireplace1982 wrote: »

Did someone say move the air corps to gormo? Ever been to gormo?

Don't really mind where they relocate to. Apart from govt transport can't see why it matters where they operate from. Release them into the wild for all I care!

fireplace1982 wrote: »

Bal could be shared with civvie aircraft (aldergrove for example)but it would require major investment to build terminals, and airside facilities never mind extending the runways.

Low-cost airlines just need a runway with no sheep on it and a shed for passengers to wait in...
Take your point about the runways though - perhaps some sort of net for inbound and slingshot for outbound?

fireplace1982 wrote: »

If it were ever to happen, it would have happened prior to 'the crunch'

Land is cheap, construction workers unemployed - seems like a good way to stimulate growth...

fireplace1982

You are absolutely right, your argument is flawless, im convinced.

DOCARCH

fireplace1982 wrote: »

Did someone say move the air corps to gormo? Ever been to gormo? Your chance of operating a GIV, a Lear Jet, Two CASAs, A beechcraft, 6 Aw139s, four Ec135s (including GASU), a defender, 8 PC9Ms, and 6 cessnas are slim to say the least.

I know this will make a whole lot of sense and logic, but when I was in the Naval Reserve, I have had the misfortune to spend many days and a number of nights in Gormanstown! To describe it as a kip would be kind. However facilities can be upgraded, runways extended, etc.

All I'll say about Baldonnel again is the weather conditions, during the winter you would end up with a significant no. of flights diverted to Dublin AP.

DOCARCH

fireplace1982 wrote: »

Bal could be shared with civvie aircraft (aldergrove for example)but it would require major investment to build terminals, and airside facilities never mind extending the runways. If it were ever to happen, it would have happened prior to 'the crunch'

Just to add that AFAIK the runway at Baldonnel is actually long enough to take commercial jets, I have seen a no. of 737s (and I think a 757) on approach to Baldonnel (charter airlines - obvoiusly bringing soldiers home).

jackofalltrades

themarcus wrote:

I've been reading a few bits and pieces about baldonnel/casment(which do we call it?) and was wondering why it hasn't been discussed more as a competitor to Dublin airport since Tony Ryan in the '90s?

This topic was discussed here before, and the general consensus as that time was that it was a bad idea. Ryanair/MOL have ruled out using Baldonnel.

The runway isn't long enough, is orientated the wrong way (when you take into consideration the general direction the wind blows from) and its too close to mountains, which as DOCARCH has already said would lead to a lot of diversions to EIDW during the winter months.

EIDW is more than capable of handling the needs of the city for the foreseeable future when the second runway is built.

Steyr

Didnt EIME's runways get re-surfaced etc recently? I thought they were long enough as she can handle 737's and 757's.

donvito99

Confab wrote: »

Firstly, Baldonnell is the arse end of nowhere. Can you imagine all of the airports passengers having to go through the city centre to get to it?

Secondly, having two large airports right beside each other is madness, especially when you realise how bad the IAA are at doing anything logical.

Thirdly it's a military base. They won't take kindly to sharing their airspace with lowly civilians.

But mainly it's just pettymindedness and a lack of a good transport system.

It would be simple to build rail line to there compared to Metro North.

diverdriver

Low-cost airlines just need a runway with no sheep on it and a shed for passengers to wait in...

LOL:D Absolutely true. Baldonnel is wasted on the Air Corps. At the very least they should sell part of it to Mansfield and let him set up there instead of Weston. It would be handy for him with Citywest just there. The weather isn't the issue people seem to think it is. What may kill the idea more is the fact the the approach path passes over some of the most expensive real estate in Ireland. The southside of Dublin.

Maybe they'll do something when they finally wake up and disband the Air Corps. But don't hold your breath.

Elsa Lenihan

The whole Baldonnel as a public airport idea was looked at a few years ago & ruled out as due to the prevailing winds planes would mostly make their approach accross built up south dublin with their flightpath getting down to 500ft over the hospital at Tallaght! The noise, risk etc don't add up & if there is a need for a 2nd airport it should be green field site near the coast. Far safer and disturbing only the seagulls!

FiSe

Weston?

Leave the one and only IAC base alone and build a museum in there :rolleyes:

Tabnabs

FiSe wrote: »

Weston?

Now that is the back arse of nowhere.

(It's not even Dublin FFS :pac:)

Run_to_da_hills

The Minister of Defense has been requested to keep all commercial activity out of Baldonnel to prepare for the forthcoming NWO. Every major city will need a landing base for B52's C17A Globemaster III, Galaxy's, Antonov 125's and various commandeered civilian aircraft for both the deployment of international troops, authorities, military equipment and also the removal of dissidents to foreign FEMA camps.

Any civilian use of this airport could jeopardies the flow of emergency military operations. Baldonnel is also very suitable as a military airfield because of its close proximity to the network of interurban motorways which is far more important than any public transport network.

Similar requests will be made for Shannon and Knock after all the tumbleweed is cleared from the runways :eek:

Tabnabs

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Any civilian use of this airport could jeopardies the flow of emergency military operations. Baldonnel is also very suitable as a military airfield because of its close proximity to the network of interurban motorways which is far more important than any public transport network.

WTF? Dublin Airport is bigger, can handle larger aircraft, has much larger freight and marshalling areas, is not overlooked by the mountains and thereby open to artillery and EIDW is on two major motorways and has direct access to the largest port in the country.

Your NWO is not very bright is it?

Back to making tinfoil hats...

MementoMori

Just wondering if Baldoyle isn't massively suitable for commercial passenger travel, would there be any possibility of maybe shifting some/any other different types of flight operations from Dublin Airport to free up some space?

I was thinking maybe DHL/FedEx etc?

Run_to_da_hills

Dyflin wrote: »

WTF? Dublin Airport is bigger, can handle larger aircraft, has much larger freight and marshalling areas, is not overlooked by the mountains and thereby open to artillery and EIDW is on two major motorways and has direct access to the largest port in the country.

Your NWO is not very bright is it?

Back to making tinfoil hats...

They could commandeer Dublin as well.

diverdriver

Baldonnel could be controlled by mortar fire, rockets and snipers. Dublin is within easy reach of artillery from the hills. All dissidents will be sent to Leitrim.

Davidth88

Any civilian use of this airport could jeopardies the flow of emergency military operations.

There are loads of good examples where civilian and military aircraft mix perfectly well.

The best example I know is round the corner from where I grew up RAF Northolt . Its similarity with Baldonnel is obvious, 32 Sq fly from there and do a similar job to most of the Irish Air Corp , which to be frank 90% of it's work seems to be as a taxi service for the ' great and the good ' in the government , or the helicopter stuff for the Army, for which to be frank why don't they move the helicopters to the Curragh ?

It's not like you are seeing secret missions taking place , or the IAC have aircraft in a QRA waiting for an aircraft to enter Irish airspace .

Now as for why could't Baldonnel be a second Dublin Airport ....

There are good arguments for , for example the N/M7 is next to it, you could have a station almost instantly ( the railway is very close ) etc.

And some arguments against , the runway alignment etc I am not qualified to talk about ( not that I am qualified to talk about anything ) but seems feisable.

fireplace1982

Runway orientation is 23/05 and 29/11 with 29/11 being the longer, not a huge difference between dublins main runway 28/10. The surrounding mountains dont make a huge difference as there are hundreds of airports in real mountainous areas that service public transport (salzburg, Cusco etc).
Operating the helis out of the curragh makes no sense, it is a 5 minute flight from Casement to the Curragh and the amount of money needed to support 6 139s and 2 135s would be crazy (hangars, towers, ramps, stores, offices, runways/FATOs,).
737s and the like have flown in and out of Bal before but it would require major infrastructural work for a sustained operation, however the main thing that will stop Bal being joint operated with civvies is noise pollution. The 29 approach goes over Tallaght and the 23 approach goes over Clondalkin. Apparently, plently of complaints are made to the Air Corps about the existing number of aircraft movements and their noise, could you imagine the protests + loss of votes if the government decided to civilianise Bal just to alleviate some of the pressure on EIDW. Not going to happen.
One more thing, there seems to be a lot of 'Sure the Air Corps dont do anything anyway' type thing going on, out of interest, where is this coming from?... FOI will allow anyone to research exactly what they do, that is if you are truly interested, if you just want to take pot shots because you are an ice cream licker who tried and failed to become a Pilot or something then you are welcome to your opinion if it is well founded.

Davidth88

'

Sure the Air Corps dont do anything anyway' type thing going on, out of interest, where is this coming from?... FOI will allow anyone to research exactly what they do, that is if you are truly interested, if you just want to take pot shots because you are an ice cream licker who tried and failed to become a Pilot or something then you are welcome to your opinion if it is well founded.

All I was trying to say is that there is no reason not to mix military/civil operations that I know of.

Ill be frank I have never really understood what the IAC try to achieve with their PC9's, it's not like the pilots are going on to work on fast jets etc, nor are the PC9s capable ( that I know of ) of protecting the airspace as such.

If you take the CASA away ( which there should be mopre of as the Cocaine finds down in Cork are testament to ) , and the helecopters , whats left...basically an operation similar to 32sq http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._32_(The_Royal)_Squadron_RAF

( open to correction )

themarcus

fireplace1982 wrote: »

One more thing, there seems to be a lot of 'Sure the Air Corps dont do anything anyway' type thing going on, out of interest, where is this coming from?... FOI will allow anyone to research exactly what they do, that is if you are truly interested, if you just want to take pot shots because you are an ice cream licker who tried and failed to become a Pilot or something then you are welcome to your opinion if it is well founded.

It's not so much that they don't do anything, more that they could scarcely claim to be maximising the potential of their real estate. Even if they sold it to property developers (admittedly unlikely at the mo) the revenue would dwarf the cost of a new facility in the midlands.

fireplace1982 wrote: »

The 29 approach goes over Tallaght and the 23 approach goes over Clondalkin. Apparently, plently of complaints are made to the Air Corps about the existing number of aircraft movements and their noise, could you imagine the protests + loss of votes if the government decided to civilianise Bal just to alleviate some of the pressure on EIDW. Not going to happen.

You've definitely got a point there - it'd be political suicide. Shame that.

fireplace1982

The PC9s train pilots (or rather the pilot within it does!) Hence why their squadron is called the Flying Training School...does exactly what it says on the tin.

Fratton Fred

fireplace1982 wrote: »

The PC9s train pilots (or rather the pilot within it does!) Hence why their squadron is called the Flying Training School...does exactly what it says on the tin.

trains them for what though?

I don't want to knock the Air Corp, they do the best with what they have, but fixed wing wise they are a cross between a display team and a taxi service for a few people who, frankly, should take the ****ing bus so they can see how crap public transport is.

Of course a military airfield is needed for military transport, but shannon probably carries more military traffic than Baldonnel so why not give O'Leary a chance to do something with it?

fireplace1982

How do government jet pilots learn the basics, or a aw139 skipper? or a CASA pilot? Where do GASU pilots learn their trade? In FTS, hence the PC9s, if people read anything else into them...such as their limited intercept capablility then that is their problem, they were not bought as fighters or as a lead into jet training, they are used to train young guys how to fly and also to teach more experienced guys how to become instructors. The Air Corps is a lot more than their PC9s, its just that they do the state flypasts etc so people see them and think why? well 9-5 monday to friday they are teaching guys how to fly....

Davidth88

This thread has changed direction somewhat.... but I am afraid I am going to pull it further off.

So the PC9s are used to train pilots for the CASA, The Garda Air Support Unit, and the AW139s ?

In these times ( and indeed at anytime ) is having a dedicated flight training school cost effective , how many pilots do the IAC need for these roles ?

Could they not use commercial flight schools ( I assume they have to send the pilots off for flight conversion anyway ?? ) . For the special roles such as the CASA/GASU etc, there must be special schools somewhere in the world ( uk/usa ) that could teach the skills for that . In fact couldn't the GASU employ civilians ( they do elsewhere ).

To be honest , my view would be that the IAC should be an effective force, that can support the troops on the ground . Why are there not a number of GA ( Ground attack ) sq's ? They could then be deployed overseas to help the troops in a practical manner. ( fancy some Harriers anyone ? )

fireplace1982

If the air corps sent their pilots off for commercial training what would they get back?....commercial pilots. Not pilots trained to military standards (i have heard that there is a one in four failure rate in the Air Corps), military pilots need to be trained in close formation, aerobatics, air firing, tactical navigation, night navigation, army support.

Whether the PC9 was the right aircraft to purchase is open to debate but to do the whole ' sure what do them things do anyway other than swan around, lets get f16s' is a waste of time and space on the megaweb!

As for ground attck, harriers et al... walter mittysim in extremis

Davidth88

whoa

military pilots need to be trained in close formation, aerobatics, air firing, tactical navigation, night navigation, army support.

How many of these skills are required to fly the CASA / Islander / Gulfstream/ Lear Jet / King Air

Ok I can understand night navigation ( surely civil pilots do that too ) , but close formation ? aerobatics ? air firing ?

I don't understand the reference to Walter Mitty... I was making a serious suggestion that if the IAC want to support the Army in an more active way, if that's on cloud cookoo land then so be it .

I certainly don't have any wish/dream to join the IAC.....

jmayo

fireplace1982 wrote: »

How do government jet pilots learn the basics, or a aw139 skipper? or a CASA pilot? Where do GASU pilots learn their trade? In FTS, hence the PC9s, if people read anything else into them...such as their limited intercept capablility then that is their problem, they were not bought as fighters or as a lead into jet training, they are used to train young guys how to fly and also to teach more experienced guys how to become instructors. The Air Corps is a lot more than their PC9s, its just that they do the state flypasts etc so people see them and think why? well 9-5 monday to friday they are teaching guys how to fly....

Why would you learn how to fly a PC9 to help you fly an AW139 ?
I would find it very unsual for pilots to start their training on a PC9.
It would make sense to start in the Cessna.
I would presume the heli guys do most of their training in an EC135.

You usually start on a very basic aircraft, even a Cessna or in the RAF something like a Firefly, then moving to something like a Tucano.
Heli pilots may do some fixed wing training, but they are usually moved to helis because they are pretty different.
Of course the Air Corps could be totally different to other air forces, but it would not make much sense training someone to high standard in high spec fixed wing trainer, to hand them over for heli training.

fireplace1982

The air corps needed to replace their basic trainer (to take an 19 year old guy off the street and teach him how to fly to a high standard) if they dont make the cut they are gone. What do you get to do the training? a screening aircraft?, then a pc9 then a subsonic jet.... yes that would be great but budgetary contraints necessitated a single type, capable of training a student to a high (SPIFR) status.

With irish weather being what it is a machine that can do basic training above the weather would be nice too. An analogue cockpit trainer would not make sense as no Air Corps aircraft has en EFIS-less cockpit. An aircraft that can support the teaching of basic airmanship as well as fast, advanced flying. The fact that it is a fixed wing is irrelevant, a hopeful cadet must prove he has what it take to handle the pressure of intense flight training, if he/she cant its good luck to ye.

The RAF train their heli pilots on the tucano (very similar to PC9). Sure, we can train our fixed wing guys on cessnas .... While we are at it we could train our troops for overseas service from robbies 'two at a time lads, sorry no room for rifles' We could have dropped the ball into thomand park in a ford transit too.

The air corps has a miniature budget and a meagre fleet and still the moaning goes on. Do you think it is the air corps choice that part of their task is ministerial VIP... As for getting harriers and all that stuff sure that would be great if the public support (or finance) was there for it but from what can be seen from this thread there are a lot of experts who have no time for the air corps no matter what they do.

pclancy

So basically flightpaths annoying people and the fact that the IAC don't want to share are the main killers of any commercial operation out of BAL. Does seem a shame allright to have it so empty when DUB is so congested and hard to get to.

FiSe

Sorry got lost here after all those posts...

Why, exactly, do we need a new commercial airport in Dublin? Or should I say, new-ish as Baldonnel will need to be completly renovated...

Wouldn't be cheaper just to go off to M.O'L estate and build a brand new, sparkling airport on the green field?

How many passengers passing through the Big Smoke Airport would rather use Shannon, Cork, or let's say Kerry airports instead?

And, ehm, IAC... military and civilian operations from the same airports are possible, but let's not forget that all above named airfields are in countries which have more than just a one pure military airfield.
So, wouldn't make a more sense to equip this army branch properly and adequately to its role, instead of taking the only space they still have off them?

mikemac

fireplace1982 wrote: »

however the main thing that will stop Bal being joint operated with civvies is noise pollution. The 29 approach goes over Tallaght and the 23 approach goes over Clondalkin. Apparently, plently of complaints are made to the Air Corps about the existing number of aircraft movements and their noise, could you imagine the protests + loss of votes if the government decided to civilianise Bal just to alleviate some of the pressure on EIDW. Not going to happen.

I'm not sure how old Baldonnel is, a quick google search shows it was there in the 1930's and most of the estates in Tallaght and Clondalkin didn't exist back then. Sure they were probably country villages back then! The residents will have to be ignored if it's deemed to be in the national interest, I'm not saying if it is or not.

Sure the same protests happened at Dublin Airport from residents in Portmarnock and the planned new runway.
Can't keep everyone happy

pclancy

They're not gunna get any more dosh to be able to perform any more tasks then they allready do though are they? I don't see Baldonnel ever changing to civilian use, as you say it might someday turn out that a new more midlands located airport springs up from a green field.

Maybe Portlaoise will finally get its runway

Davidth88

Sorry to everyone for dragging the thread off track , perhaps we should open a more general IAC thread ?

Yes Dublin does need another airport. Put it this way , if what happened at Rome Ciapino ( spelling ?? ) last week happened in Rome what would happen ?

( lets assume the aircraft came to rest at the terminal end of the runway , therefore blocking the ' cross ' runway too )

Dublin would be cut off from the rest of the world !

Shannon/Cork are NOT viable diverts , they are both 3-4-5 hrs from Dublin , there isn't even a dual carrageway between the cities for goodness sake .

Now if BAL is a viable alternative , well not withstanding the runway direction/location of residents, where else could you put it ? South of Dublin is no good ( bit bumpy ) , east is no good ( bit wet ) , north is already taken, so that leaves the west of the city.

FiSe

pclancy wrote: »

They're not gunna get any more dosh to be able to perform any more tasks then they allready do though are they?

No, but it's not 'their' fault

Yes Dublin does need another airport. Put it this way , if what happened at Rome Ciapino ( spelling ?? ) last week happened in Rome what would happen ?
( lets assume the aircraft came to rest at the terminal end of the runway , therefore blocking the ' cross ' runway too )
Dublin would be cut off from the rest of the world !
Shannon/Cork are NOT viable diverts , they are both 3-4-5 hrs from Dublin , there isn't even a dual carrageway between the cities for goodness sake .

Maybe another runway would sort out this problem?

I still don't understand why would Dublin need another separate airport? It's a city with only 1.5mil habitants, one properly working airport should be enough.

Let's put it this way, I'm living in Co. Limerick, hence I'm using Cork or Shannon, if I can and whenewer I can.
Unfortunately, those 2 airports are in the shade of Dublin, big time, so I have to travel all the way to Dublin if I want to travel to the destinations which aren't served by those two 'regional' airports. It's highly inconvinient for me, not because the 2.5hrs drive, which is really nothing, but because I have to stay somewhere overnight as most of the flights leaving in the morning, but I have no choice. And tens of thousands of other travelling folks are in the same situation.
So, if those two airports would work as they should, it would ease that pressure on the D. Airport. But this would bring much less revenue to the DAA, so there's really no way this will ever happen...

I do agree, there should be dual carriageways built all around the country at least 5yrs ago and all 'N' marked roads should be those, but well...this is theme for another topic.
It takes 1.5hrs D to LMK on the train.
There's a new N7 being build, which will be a dual carriageway all the way D to LMK, and even with the current bad N7 we have, you'd really need to employ all your driving skills to get to Shannon in 5 hours :P well, on the pushbike perhaps :rolleyes:
Not sure what the story is down in Cork though...

Davidth88

The reason I put 3-4-5 hrs was because if you diverted to Shannon, you would wait for a bus for an hour , then 2.5 hrs driving ( buses are not as fast as cars ) to Dublin AIRPORT ( the wrong side of Dublin ).

The reason for a second airport would be the greater flexability, a second runway at the current Dublin would help of course , along with the terminal currently being built in the wrong place ( another thread )

SNN should be developed more , I think the announcement recently about the fact you will now have US Customs here is a good thing , and may encourage traffic to stage through there. You certainly get people coming from London to Dublin to go to the US to pre clear INS.

jackofalltrades

micmclo wrote:

I'm not sure how old Baldonnel is, a quick google search shows it was there in the 1930's and most of the estates in Tallaght and Clondalkin didn't exist back then. Sure they were probably country villages back then! The residents will have to be ignored if it's deemed to be in the national interest, I'm not saying if it is or not.

Sure the same protests happened at Dublin Airport from residents in Portmarnock and the planned new runway.
Can't keep everyone happy

It's one thing upsetting a few thousand people in Portmarnock, its a completely different thing to put tens if not hundreds of thousands of people under a busy commercial flight path.

davidth88 wrote:

Yes Dublin does need another airport. Put it this way , if what happened at Rome Ciapino ( spelling ?? ) last week happened in Rome what would happen ?

( lets assume the aircraft came to rest at the terminal end of the runway , therefore blocking the ' cross ' runway too )

That scenario would no longer be a possibility after the parallel runway is built. Which combined with the second terminal and a slowing economy should comfortably meet current/medium term demand.

pclancy wrote:

Maybe Portlaoise will finally get its runway:D

And after that direct flights to the US:)

themarcus

A few people seem to reckon we don't need another airport in Dublin.

Most economic theory would suggest that we really do. Dublin airport is a monopoly at the moment (no other airports are close enough to offer a realistic alternative). A competitor would steal their business until they shaped up and offered better service in order to retain business.

Re the Air Corps - I'm sure they could deal with sharing or even relocating.

Re the noise pollution - well, its the NIMBY Complex - I don't live near Baldonnel, neither do most people. In any case realignment of the runways so that they point towards less densely populated areas anyone? They're just reinforced roads after all!

Anyway I just created this thread because I'm writing an assignment on airport competition in Dublin and wanted to hear a few ideas. Thanks to everyone who came up with stuff - gave me some good leads!