Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

LXFlyer

MJohnston wrote: »

Something that I'm curious about - is there a particular reason DUB favours landing and taking off east to west on the current runway?

Obviously they have to pick one direction per runway, but I'm just wondering what the reasons are for this.

Aircraft land and take off into the wind.

blackwhite

MJohnston wrote: »

Something that I'm curious about - is there a particular reason DUB favours landing and taking off east to west on the current runway?

Obviously they have to pick one direction per runway, but I'm just wondering what the reasons are for this.

Prevailing wind in Dublin (and Ireland in general) is a westerly coming in off the Atlantic

Locker10a

Synode wrote: »

Had to queue for almost an hour on Friday to take off. It was in the afternoon so I'm guessing it was a knock on effect. Still pretty poor though

Very poor efficiency, were they using the crosswind runway that day

Kev11491

Locker10a wrote: »

Very poor efficiency, were they using the crosswind runway that day

They switched it at around midday, our flight was delayed for around an hour also

Irish Steve

blackwhite wrote: »

Prevailing wind in Dublin (and Ireland in general) is a westerly coming in off the Atlantic

Over time, yes, but, I can't remember seeing 10 being used as much as it has been over the last while, there are many more days in the last while where the winds have an easterly component in them, which is certainly outside of the norm.

Rojomur

Anyone know what is being built just inside the boundary fence close to entrance opposite AALSA. it looks like a lift shaft or something??

https://www.aviationreg.ie/_fileupload/2019%20Determination/Dublin%20Airport%20Consultation%20-%20CIP%202020%20.pdf

600 pages so put aside a few hours to read.

Very ambitious with fair bit of logic and common sense. Also note they’ve finally accepted expansion west is the way forward.

markpb

Dublin is also considering a fast-track arrivals service at Terminals 1 and 2 to allow passengers to skip queues at passport control and immigration for a fixed fee charged through the airlines.

It's funny how this is possible when it's commercial but was previously impossible because of staffing and space.

Jamie2k9

Also main notes on Pier 5/CBP
* New Pier 5 consisting of 3 floors
- Ground - (6 bus loungers with direct access to arriving transfer/immigration
- First - 8 gates accessed by CBP or non CBP - note each gate has separate access so no closure of sections of the pier like at Pier 4 (around 420-424 today)
- Second - Arrivals (and non CBP departure corridor to access First floor)

* US-CBP Expanded
- Allow US flights operate from pier 3/4/5 from the current facility at pier 4. Pier 5 will be a direct link while pier 3 will be sealed busing CBP zone until a future direct link is established.

Master Plan pg 105 for anyone looking for the pic.

Noxegon

Interesting that they want to overhaul T1 security again – anyone remember how much was spent on the previous redesign a few years ago?

Rojomur

No mention of extending runway 10/28 east towards the R132?? Surely this would make aircraft movement easier exiting terminal 2 avoiding the current bottleneck?? I thought i saw it planned for in someother document i read a few years back.

davebuck

Rojomur wrote: »

No mention of extending runway 10/28 east towards the R132?? Surely this would make aircraft movement easier exiting terminal 2 avoiding the current bottleneck?? I thought i saw it planned for in someother document i read a few years back.

Was in the plans years ago (15 years) but not recently and I'm assuming off the masterplan now????

Rojomur

Rojomur wrote: »

No mention of extending runway 10/28 east towards the R132?? Surely this would make aircraft movement easier exiting terminal 2 avoiding the current bottleneck?? I thought i saw it planned for in someother document i read a few years back.

Figure 73 page 106. 10 end extended.

Rojomur

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Figure 73 page 106. 10 end extended.

No actually i meant the 28 end. I remember a drawing that that showed an extension to this end..it looked like 200 metres or so. Just cant find image online.

Rojomur

Found it. Its from a past DAA capital investment plan...looked like a good idea to me.

MICKEYG

Rojomur wrote: »

Found it. Its from a past DAA capital investment plan...looked like a good idea to me.

Good find, might move it easier to move around that side of the airfield too . Pier E looks like it has more capacity in this photo as well.
I wonder why they didn't go with this option. Maybe issues with being too close to R132?

I assume because the benefits of its extension to the east would have been limited to aircraft on the south apron. Getting long haul aircraft from T1 or north side of T2 to the extension wouldn’t have been as efficient as the 10 extension end. Aircraft would possibly have been been going contraflow.

orionm_73

Rojomur wrote: »

Found it. Its from a past DAA capital investment plan...looked like a good idea to me.

Has the new pier for T2 been changed as well? On this plan it is parallel to the existing Pier 4 but the latest plans show it perpendicular with a lot fewer gates....

Tenger

markpb wrote: »

It's funny how this is possible when it's commercial but was previously impossible because of staffing and space.

Well in fairness the fixed fee will cover the additional staff requirement, and as it will generate a level of profit then they are willing to provided the required space.

orionm_73

orionm_73 wrote: »

Has the new pier for T2 been changed as well? On this plan it is parallel to the existing Pier 4 but the latest plans show it perpendicular with a lot fewer gates....

I think you’ve answered your own question.

trellheim

Well in fairness the fixed fee will cover the additional staff requirement, and as it will generate a level of profit then they are willing to provided the required space.

How can a commercial operation (Pay for play ) fund public sector Inis employees ? Quite apart from the fact that most of the people in arrivals are optional checks anyway ( Inis are not require to check them )

trellheim

trellheim wrote: »

How can a commercial operation (Pay for play ) fund public sector Inis employees ? Quite apart from the fact that most of the people in arrivals are optional checks anyway ( Inis are not require to check them )

I imagine it’s in the same way that the IRFU and FAI contribute towards the cost of the Gardai for events at the Aviva.

trellheim

I doubt it ; one is essential public cover that said sporting organizations have to pay otherwise the match doesnt go ahead, the other is jumping access to a public service so I do not think it is analogous.

security screening is a privately provided service, so thats ok, but paying for faster access to taxpayer-provided immigration services is not .

LXFlyer

trellheim wrote: »

I doubt it ; one is essential public cover that said sporting organizations have to pay otherwise the match doesnt go ahead, the other is jumping access to a public service so I do not think it is analogous.

security screening is a privately provided service, so thats ok, but paying for faster access to taxpayer-provided immigration services is not .

I don’t see the issue if it is done at no additional cost to the taxpayer and that the ratio of staff allocated to arriving passengers at normal booths is kept at the required levels.

The Veteran

trellheim wrote: »

I doubt it ; one is essential public cover that said sporting organizations have to pay otherwise the match doesnt go ahead, the other is jumping access to a public service so I do not think it is analogous.

security screening is a privately provided service, so thats ok, but paying for faster access to taxpayer-provided immigration services is not .

Already happens with platinum.

But leave aside the funding for a second, the bigger question is how is it going to work at all? Take T1, passengers walk along the Skybridge and there’s a queue - how do they skip that? (Without getting well kicked!). Then in the hall how do they get to the skipping lane.

Pier 3 is probably the easiest one to do it in.

Pier 4 doesn’t lend itself to a fast track because of the congestion coming out of the two tunnels.

The funding model can be worked out fairly easily.

trellheim

I'm sorry I have a major major issue with services being provided in this way. Ranting aside I think its pay-for-play queue jumping. ( I take the point about platinum).

Worse, and leaving the above aside, I can foresee a time when the paid-access hatches are manned and the free access hatches are not ( Much as LXF said ) just cos of staffing issues.

The Veteran

trellheim wrote: »

I'm sorry I have a major major issue with services being provided in this way. Ranting aside I think its pay-for-play queue jumping. ( I take the point about platinum).

Worse, and leaving the above aside, I can foresee a time when the paid-access hatches are manned and the free access hatches are not ( Much as LXF said ) just cos of staffing issues.

It can be bought at several UK airports. It can be done but I just don’t see how it can be implemented “simply” without significant infrastructure.

Chris_5339762

Stansted is the worst example of this (and everything really). 15+ minute minimum security queues and signs everywhere where you can buy platinum security and skip the queue. They also designed the corral into security so that you can't see the queue until you are committed.

jamo2oo9

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Stansted is the worst example of this (and everything really). 15+ minute minimum security queues and signs everywhere where you can buy platinum security and skip the queue. They also designed the corral into security so that you can't see the queue until you are committed.

Same in Manchester. Paid for a fast track security in T2 as I had a short connection from T1 and had to check in again. The queue took 45mins to go through even though I was in fast track... Can't imagine what it was like for the non fast track queue

Jamie2k9

https://m.independent.ie/business/irish/daa-bid-to-raise-cap-on-airport-fliers-to-35-million-37557638.html

DAA trying to increase passenger cap from 32 to 35m per year. The cap is based on access to the airport.