Dublin Airport New Runway

Fuseman

Back in 2008 DAA put on hold for 3/4 year the plans for a new runway which would be in the region of 3,000m long and would run parallel to 10/28. Now 3/4 years on, is there any sign of this becoming a reality? Sure this would put us as an ideal stop point to trans-Atlantic flights and with a runway that size we could start to see something like an A380 landing in Dublin. Obviously I know that at the moment we don't have the Passenger gangways for an A380 but surely that would just be an quick-fix that could be plugged into Terminal 2.

Was great to see the 787 land on Wednesday night. Hoping to make it out to the airport to see it take off later

drdeadlift

Fuseman wrote: »

Back in 2008 DAA put on hold for 3/4 year the plans for a new runway which would be in the region of 3,000m long and would run parallel to 10/28. Now 3/4 years on, is there any sign of this becoming a reality? Sure this would put us as an ideal stop point to trans-Atlantic flights and with a runway that size we could start to see something like an A380 landing in Dublin. Obviously I know that at the moment we don't have the Passenger gangways for an A380 but surely that would just be an quick-fix that could be plugged into Terminal 2.

Was great to see the 787 land on Wednesday night. Hoping to make it out to the airport to see it take off later

Not enough money or people to bother with this project,would be great to see it happening eventually!

Irish Steve

The land reservation is there, but at the moment, the volumes don't justify the expense of building it. What may in fact force the issue is that the existing main runway is starting to show advanced signs of deterioration of it's foundations, despite not having been built that long ago.

A longer runway would indeed facilitate larger aircraft and longer routes, both of which are constrained at present by the length of 10/28, it already limits things like 747F from operating at Max TO weight.

Given the will to do it, there is space to extend the existing runway, there are roads at both ends that would need to be put in to a tunnel or diverted, but it's been done before, and could be done again.

The biggest problem is cash, DAA already has a massive debt burden as a result of T2, (apparently one of the stands on T2 could accomodate a 380), so finding more cash, and lots of it, for another runway is not going to happen any time soon.

Forget Trans Atlantic stop overs for commercial operators, they are not needed any more for operations out of Europe, the only realistic way that Dublin ( or Shannon) could attract more Trans Atlantic traffic at the moment would be for a low cost operator to start a hub feeder operation using smaller aircraft to bring in passengers from smaller airports across Europe, and then feed into a larger aircraft, with the (very big) advantage of the Immigration and Customs pre clearance facility, which is not being used to its best potential at the moment.

A possibility might be for Middle Eastern operators to use DUB/SNN for clearance, but the downside of that is the lack of passengers that might either join or leave such flights in Ireland, compared to somewhere like London. At present, DUB/SNN would not offer enough advantages there, although with proper planning and management (not going to hold my breath there) it could be done.

Another thing that's not being pushed at all at the moment, partly through a total lack of facilities at Dublin, would be the use of the pre clearance service for business jet operators, and in some cases, that would be a huge benefit to them, being able to clear here, and then land at any airfield in the States that's within range offers some real advantages to the business community. It would have been very easy to have had a dedicated General Aviation terminal in the old Iona premises, but that's now not a possibility.

A second runway for Dublin will happen at some stage, if for no other reason than to ease the congestion that occurs around the 28 threshold, but it will have to be properly planned and put in without things like political interference that restricted the 10/28 build to less than Shannon, because of the parish pump mentality of "protecting" Shannon.

Another thing that needs to be considered very carefully is the whole aspect of air freight in and out of Dublin, at present it's a mess, in terms of where freight aircraft are parked, loaded and unloaded, and how that freight is got on to and off the ramp, it's another of those areas that's evolved by accident rather than being properly planned and managed, as with so much of what's happened at Dublin.

East Midlands, Liege and Frankfurt all have significant specialised freight operations, there is no valid reason for not having a freight hub at Dublin, or Shannon, in fact, in time, there's a case for an integrated freight operation at Shannon using air, water and rail that would serve large parts of Europe, given the right investment in a suitable tunnel to the UK, which might seem crazy now, but not so crazy when oil is no longer an easy and cheap commodity, which may be closer than some care to admit.

Dublin (and Shannon) have a future, and it could be a good one, given some integrated thinking that goes beyond the present limited thinking that seems to be a pre requisite of the way Ireland's major airports are operated.

tippilot

Irish Steve wrote: »

if for no other reason than to ease the congestion that occurs around the 28 threshold

Congestion is not a major factor when 28 is in use. The wait is never longer than a few minutes and certainly much shorter than at other major European airports.

There can however be an issue when 10 is in use, but it's been a couple of years since I've experienced anything noteworthy given the delcine in traffic at DUB in recent years.

there is no valid reason for not having a freight hub at Dublin, or Shannon

Already in the works:

http://www.shannonairport.com/gns/about-us/media-centre/press-releases/11-09-23/DAA_Signs_Heads_of_Agreement_with_Lynxs_for_New_Shannon_Cargo_Facility.aspx

coylemj

tippilot wrote: »

Congestion is not a major factor when 28 is in use. The wait is never longer than a few minutes and certainly much shorter than at other major European airports.

There can however be an issue when 10 is in use, but it's been a couple of years since I've experienced anything noteworthy given the delcine in traffic at DUB in recent years.

Could you explain why please to someone not involved in aviation but with an interest in the field? I know that 10/28 is the same stretch of concrete so why does it matter which direction planes are taking off and landing and how does this affect turnaround and delay times? Doesn't switchng the traffic just change whether the long taxi happens before takeoff or after landing and wouldn't these balance out?

Tenger

coylemj wrote: »

Could you explain why please to someone not involved in aviation but with an interest in the field? I know that 10/28 is the same stretch of concrete so why does it matter which direction planes are taking off and landing and how does this affect turnaround and delay times? Doesn't switchng the traffic just change whether the long taxi happens before takeoff or after landing and wouldn't these balance out?

I would guess that with RWY28 in use you can have 2-3 taxiways feeding into the holding point. Whereas with RWY10 in use there is a single parallel taxiway feeding into the holding points.

Anyone want to correct me?

mayotom

Tenger wrote: »

coylemj wrote: »

Could you explain why please to someone not involved in aviation but with an interest in the field? I know that 10/28 is the same stretch of concrete so why does it matter which direction planes are taking off and landing and how does this affect turnaround and delay times? Doesn't switchng the traffic just change whether the long taxi happens before takeoff or after landing and wouldn't these balance out?

I would guess that with RWY28 in use you can have 2-3 taxiways feeding into the holding point. Whereas with RWY10 in use there is a single parallel taxiway feeding into the holding points.

Anyone want to correct me?

The wind is the most important factor. The aircraft must take off into the wind. Therefore taxiways feeding that end of the runway has no bearing. However the taxiways may have been built because of the prevailing winds.

tricky D

Tenger wrote: »

I would guess that with RWY28 in use you can have 2-3 taxiways feeding into the holding point. Whereas with RWY10 in use there is a single parallel taxiway feeding into the holding points.

Anyone want to correct me?

For RWY10, you could easily put over 10, maybe 15, in a queue on B4, B5, B6, B7 and maybe B3, it's so long. Don't reckon that's an issue here.

urajoke

Generally when 10 is active it's summer time and there is on shore winds because of the heat. Because it's summer time there is holiday flights so extra traffic causing delays.

It doesn't matter whether it's 10 or 28 the same amount of traffic can be handled. It does matter if 16 or 34 is used as traffic figures are less as it's either 5nm or 7nm spacing on finals as opposed to 3nm or 6nm on 10/28. The reduction is due to the gates being closer to the runway and aircraft maybe having to wait for taxiing or pushing traffic.

It doesn't matter how many taxiways are available as only one aircraft can use the runway at a time. It does matter if you have one ahead of you that can't depart due to an expired slot time and you have 3 waiting behind him that can't get passed on B7 however. Having say 6 holding points means 6 aircraft are holding short as opposed to 6 holding in a queue.

bkehoe

Tenger wrote: »

I would guess that with RWY28 in use you can have 2-3 taxiways feeding into the holding point. Whereas with RWY10 in use there is a single parallel taxiway feeding into the holding points.

Anyone want to correct me?

Well in the busy morning periods, assuming the wind is fairly benign then ATC have been known to use 28 and 34 for departures which would increase the departure rate.

Also for wake separation purposes I'm speculating that intersection departures off 28 are sometimes used.

urajoke

When 28 is in use 34 is available for use from 0630-0800 it up to the operators to decide if the wind is acceptable.

Intersection departures like E2 etc are rarely used. Departures by aircraft entering from 16 is common. It's used to beat wake separation or increase traffic flow by beating the 2mins required behind a heavy by launching ahead of one.

cgcsb

It would be a great project if only there was the cash to support it. With a longer runway the DAA could get to work convincing etihad, emirites and air India to use Dublin as a hub for their US destinations, our pre-clear facilities would be a massive advantage.

APM

When aircraft are landing on RW10 the spacing has to be slightly more than landing on 28 due to the speed aircraft can turn off the Runway at the exits. At peak times this means extended vectors out to the west or having to slow down very early

I think that is more of an issue than aircraft getting in a queue to take-off

Peregrine

cgcsb wrote: »

It would be a great project if only there was the cash to support it. With a longer runway the DAA could get to work convincing etihad, emirites and air India to use Dublin as a hub for their US destinations, our pre-clear facilities would be a massive advantage.

That ship has sailed, we haven't heard anything for over 2 years. I think they decided to fly straight to the East coast.

Tenger

cgcsb wrote: »

It would be a great project if only there was the cash to support it. With a longer runway the DAA could get to work convincing etihad, emirites and air India to use Dublin as a hub for their US destinations, our pre-clear facilities would be a massive advantage.

Actually it would be the other way around. A longer runway would allow fully laden B777's/A340's/A330's to operate to Asia. US CBP facilities would of course be a benefit is an Asian/MidEast carrier was granted 5th Freedom rights to flt to the US via DUB.
As above.....the Air India rumour never materialised into anything, the UAE carriers don't need the stop with their B777's, and the CBP facilites are pretty much at capacity already. As it is some Aer Lingus departures do not use it due congestion.

donvito99

Seeing as 28/10 is at crisis point, it's about time an 2nd east/west runway was built to the North.

basill

That would be my view as well. Do it whilst demand isn't there and get it done cheap whilst the big engineering firms are scouring around for work. But no doubt we will wait to the next peak and then go through the whole planning process/tree hugging consultation and pay top dollar and it will be available right when the next recession kicks in.

chughes

basill wrote: »

That would be my view as well. Do it whilst demand isn't there and get it done cheap whilst the big engineering firms are scouring around for work. But no doubt we will wait to the next peak and then go through the whole planning process/tree hugging consultation and pay top dollar and it will be available right when the next recession kicks in.

This makes huge sense. Getting staff and equipment at the right price can only be done at a recessionary time like now. As Basill says, it will be up and running just when we need it.

Unfortunately, our European overlords probably won't let it happen.

donvito99

There have been huge figures quoted for this new runway.

How is this possible for what is essentially a ridiculously strong, big car park?

Shamrock231

chughes wrote: »

This makes huge sense. Getting staff and
Unfortunately, our European overlords probably won't let it happen.

It's not a matter for the government but the DAA, they're the ones that will have to raise the capital to build the new runway, which is going to be pretty difficult due to the large loan outstanding of €1.2 billion following the construction of Pier D, Pier E, T2 and moving the road network around at the airport. As said though now would be the best time if only they could source the money, 28/10 is apparently in very poor state having been closed there a few weeks back after an aircraft took a large chunk of concrete out of it... :eek:

zone 1

is there plans or drawing out with what it might look like

Shamrock231

http://www.fingalcoco.ie/Planning/LocalAreaPlans/AirportLocalAreaPlan/SEAReportl.pdf

zone 1

thanks.

Peregrine

basill wrote: »

But no doubt we will wait to the next peak and then go through the whole planning process/tree hugging consultation and pay top dollar and it will be available right when the next recession kicks in.

Or else it would make way too much sense..

zone 1 wrote: »

is there plans or drawing out with what it might look like

http://www.dublinairport.com/Libraries/Random_Image_Group/runway_proposed_photo_v2.sflb.ashx

Jamie2k9

Shamrock231 wrote: »

http://www.fingalcoco.ie/Planning/LocalAreaPlans/AirportLocalAreaPlan/SEAReportl.pdf

That's not the correct drawing as they had new plans and it will be 3660 and not 3110 as planned.

donvito99

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

That's not the correct drawing as they had new plans and it will be 3660 and not 3110 as planned.

It also lacks Piers D/E, and the West Apron.

View Profile

If it were to go ahead the area between both runways would be a prime candidate for a future new terminal.

donvito99

View Profile wrote: »

If it were to go ahead the area between both runways would be a prime candidate for a future new terminal.

The proposal in the linked document above makes alot of sense, too late now though!

basill

We all know that they won't follow logic and build the new runway until way after it is much needed. But it begs the question why they don't pour some more concrete around the airport for the parking of the long termers. eg: Malev etc. Then they could get 11/29 open which will enable the TPs to do a cloud break and free up the main runway thus reducing congestion.

Jamie2k9

Even if the DAA wanted to build it now they are not allowed to start any sort of work because the CAR won't allow it until 23.5 million pax is reached.

FWVT

basill wrote: »

We all know that they won't follow logic and build the new runway until way after it is much needed. But it begs the question why they don't pour some more concrete around the airport for the parking of the long termers. eg: Malev etc. Then they could get 11/29 open which will enable the TPs to do a cloud break and free up the main runway thus reducing congestion.

Remind me why 11/29 was closed again?

Peregrine

FWVT wrote: »

Remind me why 11/29 was closed again?

I thought it was closed to build the new parallel runway

Irish Steve

At the moment, it's closed to provide long term parking, due to lack of stand space in the terminal areas, the aircraft on 11/29 are effectively in storage and not being used for operational work.

AFAIK, normal "ramp" access is not available to that area.

donkey balls

Irish Steve wrote: »

At the moment, it's closed to provide long term parking, due to lack of stand space in the terminal areas, the aircraft on 11/29 are effectively in storage and not being used for operational work.

AFAIK, normal "ramp" access is not available to that area.

The likes of RE/ City Jet do engine runs over that neck of the wood and the last time I saw an aircraft land on RWY 11/29 was an RE one a few years back,Also from memory if the parallel runway was to be built the IAA reckoned they would need a new tower.

Peregrine

donkey balls wrote: »

The likes of RE/ City Jet do engine runs over that neck of the wood and the last time I saw an aircraft land on RWY 11/29 was an RE one a few years back,Also from memory if the parallel runway was to be built the IAA reckoned they would need a new tower.

Haven't really heard anything about the new tower in years. I believe this was the chosen design http://www.stwarchitects.com/project-information.php?p=08035

donvito99

And in the mean time, Scott Tallon Walker have gone under!

LeakRate

FWVT wrote: »

Remind me why 11/29 was closed again?

It was in awful nick, it was in need of a complete resurfucing and more.

aindriu80

I see the mess that is Heathrow is in the news about needing a new runway or as Boris Johnson suggests closing and relocating to the east of England. Surely there is a lot of scope for Dublin to develop 1 or 2 new runways and allow direct flights to the far east. They have reached the bottom of the financial crisis and Dublin would serve the north of the U.K easier than heathrow.

markpb

aindriu80 wrote: »

Surely there is a lot of scope for Dublin to develop 1 or 2 new runways and allow direct flights to the far east. They have reached the bottom of the financial crisis and Dublin would serve the north of the U.K easier than heathrow.

Only 37% of passengers transfer through Heathrow, the rest are bound for London.

aindriu80

markpb wrote: »

Only 37% of passengers transfer through Heathrow, the rest are bound for London.

That's pretty impressive for London but I always thought there was a capacity problem when I was there.

shamwari

A few forums around the place are saying that the closure of 11/29 is permanent. It's becoming a bone yard anyway with all of the "non operational" stuff parked on it

EchoIndia

shamwari wrote: »

A few forums around the place are saying that the closure of 11/29 is permanent. It's becoming a bone yard anyway with all of the "non operational" stuff parked on it

It was empty the last time I passed by. A lot of the stored aircraft have moved on at this stage or can be accommodated outside the hangars.

jamo2oo9

Yeah I was departing Dublin on 21st of June and nothing was there. Cones are placed on it and a GPU was parked by it.

pclancy

When 11/29 was in use, were there parallel approaches performed when 10/28 was in use too? Did the regional aircraft fly some kind of tight right hand circuit to 29 to avoid the 28 traffic?

FWVT

pclancy wrote: »

When 11/29 was in use, were there parallel approaches performed when 10/28 was in use too? Did the regional aircraft fly some kind of tight right hand circuit to 29 to avoid the 28 traffic?

Traffic used to follow the approach to 28 and break off at the last minute, or come in on a right base over Swords estuary area. I only used it once on an Aer Arann flight to Donegal. Took off on 29 and an early right turn up towards Garristown.

For 11 I just remember them being vectored for the approach. Obviously they didn't follow the 10 approach and break off.

That's what I remember from years of spotting up there anyway.

aindriu80

If they are going ahead with the new tower surely they must be going ahead with the new runway at some point ?

Shamrock231

Did they announce they were going ahead with the new tower?

Peregrine

Afaik, both the tower and the runway are on hold

Didn't they announce 2 weeks ago that they would revisit their masterplan? Surely they can't have done that and decided to build a tower so soon.

There are a few DUB ATCs around here..do you guys know anything about this? And is there even a need for a new tower without the new runway?

Shamrock231

That's what I was thinking.
Could this infact be some advanced planning on the part of the DAA?

Razor44

Shamrock231 wrote: »

That's what I was thinking.
Could this infact be some advanced planning on the part of the DAA?

Careful now!

urajoke

No tower is on hold.

Do we need one now, well they could build it now and have it ready for when the new runway was built, a very unirish thing to do.

Having extra space in the tower would be nice, would be useful as redundancy for when engineering need to take screens, compads for servicing or new tech installation.

The extra height would give us a better view of the apron but the downside is it might put us in LVOs more often as the tower might be sightless in low cloud conditions.