Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Donegal Storm

Idbatterim wrote: »

not long after that recession and T2 already not enough stands! Drive into Dublin airport and you are greeted with multiple traffic lights! look at some of the security queues , some people waited 55 minutes last year and at the same time, many of the security screening booths are closed, they were fined for it there not so long ago. So excuse my cynicism when it comes to the DAA!

What is the bloody obsession here with the lights? Malaga doesnt have them, McCarran doesnt have them! Two of the more recent airports I have used, is this just an Irish / English love affair with traffic lights?

Traffic lights are presumably Fingal CoCo's responsibility..

Everyone was complaining that DAA were being too ambitious with T2, I remember plenty of talk of 'white elephants', 'gold-plated', 'we should let Ryanair build a big shed instead' etc.. We're now seeing the benefits of it with the hub strategy to an even greater extent than was envisaged

As for queues, T1 is a bit of a mess but T2 is usually a breeze and on the whole I'd say DUB is no worse than most other big airports I've used for queues.

Tenger

I always hated that "gold plated white elephant" tagline. Did MoL coin it?
Multiple taxi drovers got told the error of their ways and bored with talk of future proofing the airport and building a hub that will attract business.

Arthur Daley

Donegal Storm wrote: »

Everyone was complaining that DAA were being too ambitious with T2, I remember plenty of talk of 'white elephants', 'gold-plated', 'we should let Ryanair build a big shed instead' etc.. We're now seeing the benefits of it with the hub strategy to an even greater extent than was envisaged

Michael O'Leary was on radio shows in 2009/2010 spouting this. Then you have people saying he should be Minister for Health:rolleyes:. It'd be an even bigger disaster.

marno21

Arthur Daley wrote: »

Michael O'Leary was on radio shows in 2009/2010 spouting this. Then you have people saying he should be Minister for Health:rolleyes:. It'd be an even bigger disaster.

Whilst the predictions around Terminal 2 were incorrect, there was a 20% drop in passenger numbers between Terminal 2 starting construction and it opening, by which time Ireland was in an awful state, and very few people predicted the briskness of the recovery since then. They were poor in hindsight but back then there was foundation for them.

I doubt many people predicted back then that within 10 years Dublin would be operating at 30 million+ with the level of route density of today.

Tenger

Indeed, the 30+ million figure itself was not expected.
However I personally vouched for the need for T2, knowing that a recovery and growth would need a new facility. Hence my debating with anyone who mentioned "gold plated white elephant" in my company. An airport terminal is a multi-decade investment, so much development in this country is short sighted.

markpb

marno21 wrote: »

Whilst the predictions around Terminal 2 were incorrect, there was a 20% drop in passenger numbers between Terminal 2 starting construction and it opening, by which time Ireland was in an awful state, and very few people predicted the briskness of the recovery since then. They were poor in hindsight but back then there was foundation for them.

The problem is not that they were wrong or caught out by the recovery, it's that they were taking a short-term view of infrastructure investment. It wouldn't matter if T2 had been 50% utilised for a decade because it would still have another 30-40 years of useful life ahead of it. T1 is nearly 50 years old and, while it does need a little more than a lick of paint, it's still doing well for itself and whatever it cost to build back then was well invested. Heck, the OTB is nearly 80 years old and it's still very useful to DAA! It probably cost tuppence to build but I'm sure there were naysayers back then complaining that it was half empty.

Brian CivilEng

I see that opinion again and again, that if new infrastructure isn't full on opening day it's not worth it. Whereas in actual fact, if something is full on opening day it is a failure.

A320

Few changes submitted today about new runway

https://www.dublinairport.com/north-runway/latest-news-downloads/project-updates/detail/planning-application-to-amend-layout-of-north-runway

Locker10a

A320 wrote: »

Few changes submitted today about new runway

https://www.dublinairport.com/north-runway/latest-news-downloads/project-updates/detail/planning-application-to-amend-layout-of-north-runway

The old plan looks better to me, is it not more efficient to have more rapid exit taxiways ?

NH2013

Yes, seems to be another case of trying to cut costs now only to have to pay more down the road to get extra rapid exit taxiways and line up points added. Short sighted in my opinion.

View Profile

Ridiculous that they want to get rid of half the planned RET!!

Razor44

why would you get rid of the extra line up points ffs. I don't work in the business, but it's easy to see extra line up points would be advantageous or do these lads never see the morning rush.

EchoIndia

A bit of a rush to judgement here, I think. Is it not fair to assume that the following statements are relevant?:

"The new regulations set out revised criteria for the design of runways and taxiways which have a direct impact on the current permitted design of North Runway. daa is therefore seeking to amend the layout of the runway to comply with the new regulations. Additional amendments are also being sought in relation to the taxiway network for the runway which have arisen following consultation with airlines."

If you study the maps and compare them, it seems that there is still a facility for more than one line-up point, as the thresholds are displaced at either end of the runway. The revised RETs are a bit different in configuration and if, say, it was determined that landing aircraft would almost always make the first one, what value is a second?

Hotblack Desiato

View Profile wrote: »

Ridiculous that they want to get rid of half the planned RET!!

Not just that, a good bit of taxiway south of and parallel to the eastern end of the new north runway is gone.

View Profile

EchoIndia wrote:

The revised RETs are a bit different in configuration and if, say, it was determined that landing aircraft would almost always make the first one, what value is a second?

Most 737/A320 would like a RET about 1800m down the runway to comfortably vacate the runway, where as larger aircraft would require it slightly farther. A minimum of two per landing runway is therefore essential to allow efficient use of the runway.

Irish Steve

I wonder if the changes at the ends of the runways are to try and ensure that there are no wing tip conflicts with larger aircraft not quite getting the alignment on the centrelines, presumably the new plan will be to get the sequencing right by ensuring release from the stand is better managed.
Presumably, if an aircraft then needs more time to resolve an issue, or is ahead of or has missed the slot time, they will have to transit the runway to an exit and either return to the back of the queue, or move to alternate parking to resolve the issue.

NH2013

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Not just that, a good bit of taxiway south of and parallel to the eastern end of the new north runway is gone.

I hadn't even noticed that, that will certainly impact on the efficiency of the new runway to accept aircraft and sequence them for departure, I'm honestly flabbergasted at the reductions in taxiway infastructure considering how often the taxiway infastructure is currently being criticised as lacking in Dublin.

Bussywussy

DAA are dying to put in some cul de sacs

View Profile

The DAA has a heap of vacant land in which to build this new runway. It would be such a pity if they shoehorn it into the northeast corner and consequently have to develop even more complicated taxiways.
For the love of God lads, do it properly from the start and avoid tweaking it over the next 20 years!

It's such a pleasure operating into the likes of Munich, Frankfurt, and even Schiphol where it's all designed with ample space, multiple runway entry and exit points but with simple, easily understood taxiways and standard taxi routings to the aprons.
Dublin has a lot to learn and with investment and common sense it could become a much more pilot friendly airport and thus be more efficient.

plodder

I wonder are the EASA standards less onerous than the ICAO ones and they want to save money by just meeting minimum standards? And hadn't they already signed the contract for the work? All very odd.

Cookiemunster

plodder wrote: »

I wonder are the EASA standards less onerous than the ICAO ones and they want to save money by just meeting minimum standards? And hadn't they already signed the contract for the work? All very odd.

There's nothing unusual about changing parts of a design after construction has started, never mind before it's started. It happens all the time on all sorts of projects.

EchoIndia

View Profile wrote: »

Most 737/A320 would like a RET about 1800m down the runway to comfortably vacate the runway, where as larger aircraft would require it slightly farther. A minimum of two per landing runway is therefore essential to allow efficient use of the runway.

With Dublin's current runway 28, taxiway E6 is about 1800m from touchdown (probably less, in fact) and virtually all landing traffic, including heavies, is able to make this. The subsequent exit (E7) sees almost no routine use.

Tenger

Bussywussy wrote: »

DAA are dying to put in some cul de sacs

Sounds like a great idea.......

J6P

The Noise Bill is slowly making its way through the Dail....

It looks like the DAA will struggle to get their an bord pleanala restrictions removed before the new runway is operational.

This will have the effect of reducing the number of flights at the airport between 6am and 7am once the new runway comes into use.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/wrong-to-exclude-dublin-airport-from-attempt-to-change-flight-restrictions-ross-1.3769897

"Dublin Airport management - or “daa” - is preparing for the construction of a second runway which will greatly enhance capacity.

However, existing An Bord Pleanála planning would limit average traffic to “65 movements” between 11pm and 7am.

The Bill under consideration by the Committee is to accommodate EU rules that a noise regulator must be introduced to oversee operations."

denis halpenny

I thought the bill would be passed before Christmas in regards the two nightly restrictions for the new runway? Bloody politicions can they not see the long term plan and the jobs it will create and the boost to the economy.

sdanseo

New EASA regulations here https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Annex%20to%20EDD%202017-021-R%20-%20CS-ADR-DSN%20Issue%204_0.pdf (prepare for a bit of a load time, being an EU document, it's about 4 million pages long)

They specifically state the paved area must be a minimum of 60m for a Code F aircraft. Am I missing something or does that preclude A380/747-8 from ever using 10L/28R if DAA have their way?
If so, it seems incredibly short sighted. Verging on pathetic.

Page 41

CS ADR-DSN.B.145 Surface of runway shoulders
(a) The surface of a runway shoulder should be prepared or constructed so as to resist erosion and
prevent the ingestion of the surface material by aeroplane engines.
(b) Runway shoulders for code letter F aeroplanes should be paved to a minimum overall width of
runway and shoulder of not less than 60 m.

duskyjoe

Good point but tbh are the days of Quads becoming a rarity ? Does it preclude the 777 x and the 350 1000 ? If so then there’s a prob imo

JCX BXC

duskyjoe wrote: »

Good point but tbh are the days of Quads becoming a rarity ? Does it preclude the 777 x and the 350 1000 ? If so then there’s a prob imo

Are they? They're still making the A380 and 747-8F

john boye

JCX BXC wrote: »

Are they? They're still making the A380 and 747-8F

Yes but both at a glacial rate. And their numbers are ever-shrinking. Air France (of all airlines) recently announced they're getting rid of half of their A380 fleet this year and more airlines will follow.

sdanseo

Code F are uneconomical compared to twins when not full or almost full in a relatively high density config. They work for Emirates because they operate a super-hub with spoke connections as opposed to many other airlines who are switching to direct & often ultra-long haul flights with 787/A350/772. In fact the airline industry expect an aircraft capable of LHR-SYD within the next 5 years.

These will all require very heavy fuel loads meaning the length of runway will also be important, but at least the displaced thresholds are sufficiently long for easy expansion later if needed.

I did a bit more research (4am was not the time) and have answered my own question. it seems the original PP was for a 3110x75m runway. So replacing the concrete shoulders with reinforced grass still leaves a 60m paved area. Still, it's an extremely short sighted amendment with the exception of the turn pads which are not and never were required for a parallel taxiway.

Some money could be saved by intersecting with 16/34 in a straight line rather than the exaggerated curving arrangement proposed.