Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

View Profile

HTCOne wrote:

I heard 12 months before the new runway opens to allow everything else to bed in properly. Haven’t heard which will be the contingency tower though ie the current contingency tower on top of the old terminal or the current tower. Current tower can’t see threshold of 10L, hence the requirement for new tower, but I don’t know if the contingency tower can see that either.

The current active tower will be the contingency once the new one opens.
Don't think being able to visually see the threshold out the window is a concern as the new tower will be up in the clouds a lot of the time anyway.

Jamie2k9

New lounge planned for Middle Eastren and Asian flights.

https://fora.ie/dublin-airport-east-lounge-4487916-Feb2019/

basill

364 into 25k. Doesn't seem right.

goingnowhere

Eithad dumping its lounge in favour of a contract lounge?

Can't see anywhere else really that it could be

cgcsb

plodder wrote: »

Sounds more like a nuclear bunker. They were all the rage in the 1970s

In about 1958-9 the British government just announced they were building an underground rail system in Manchester (no public consultation in those days) after some construction they announced the project was binned due to costs. Of course they had built a series of underground shelters and telephone exchanges to keep functional communication between what would be left of British Society after WW3.

Stephen Strange

goingnowhere wrote: »

Eithad dumping its lounge in favour of a contract lounge?

Can't see anywhere else really that it could be

Given their current loads and number of transfer pax, there can't be a lot of pax using it. Even if 100% of departing pax were using it, that's less than, 180 per day.

Nijmegen

Stephen Strange wrote: »

Given their current loads and number of transfer pax, there can't be a lot of pax using it. Even if 100% of departing pax were using it, that's less than, 180 per day.

They're shuttering and outsourcing most of their lounges around the world. They handed over LHR, which you'd assume would be one of the most premium outstations in the world for any airline, in October. https://thepointsguy.com/news/etihad-to-hand-over-keys-to-london-heathrow-lounge/

Chris_5339762

How did no-one else on this forum post this... after 275 pages the sod was turned on the new runway today!

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0214/1029551-dublin-airport-runway/

Idbatterim

Read about it earlier , was going to post it here. Then just thinking of their usual cheapening out again irritated me , so I didn’t bother. It would be cheaper if they built a 2km runway , that will be the next amendment!

Rojomur

Well i just read that Airbus have announced they are to cease production of A380....one less headache for DAA in the future ...infrastructure wise...

IngazZagni

Idbatterim wrote: »

Read about it earlier , was going to post it here. Then just thinking of their usual cheapening out again irritated me , so I didn’t bother. It would be cheaper if they built a 2km runway , that will be the next amendment!

But that would affect the range of aircraft from that runway.

Do the amendments to the new runway affect any operational points? I believe it will still be able to accommodate every aircraft perhaps excluding the A380. So why wouldn't they take advantage of the updated EASA guidelines and reduce construction costs? The entire country should be happy with that especially as it would be in stark contrast to the National Children's hospital fiasco.

jamo2oo9

IngazZagni wrote: »

But that would affect the range of aircraft from that runway.

Do the amendments to the new runway affect any operational points? I believe it will still be able to accommodate every aircraft perhaps excluding the A380. So why wouldn't they take advantage of the updated EASA guidelines and reduce construction costs? The entire country should be happy with that especially as it would be in stark contrast to the National Children's hospital fiasco.

Doesn't matter what the public's opinion of the cost of the runway. DAA is funding it entirely themselves.

Nijmegen

jamo2oo9 wrote: »

Doesn't matter what the public's opinion of the cost of the runway. DAA is funding it entirely themselves.

DAA has one shareholder, in fairness.

cgcsb

Long overdue. Would love to see a greater long-haul offering at Dublin. Specifically: Tokyo, Bangkok, Singapore, Rio, Buenes Aires, Mexico, Cape Town. A real global airport. Not long ago more than half of the flights from Dublin were to the UK only. Now less than a third are to the UK.

After Brexit, Heathrow and Gatwick will be out of the EU, making Dublin the 10th busiest airport in the EU, and growing. The Netherlands, Norway, Finland, Belgium and Denmark have the long standing policy that, due to their country's size they need one, and only one, large hub airport, with the rest having regional functions only, in Ireland there's a perception that the likes of Knock and Shannon are of equal importance.

Blut2

We'll be a long, long time waiting for some of those. Some are also very unlikely at any stage - if DUB ever gets a Brazilian route it'll be Sao Paulo and not Rio, for Africa Joburg rather than Cape Town etc. Agreed with the need to stop wasting time and energy on long haul flights to Cork/Shannon though. DUB has to be the single country hub, given the smallness (both geographic and population) of Ireland.

The growth over the last couple of decades has been spectacular though to be fair, and handled very well to date.

Shn99

Blut2 wrote: »

We'll be a long, long time waiting for some of those. Some are also very unlikely at any stage - if DUB ever gets a Brazilian route it'll be Sao Paulo and not Rio, for Africa Joburg rather than Cape Town etc. Agreed with the need to stop wasting time and energy on long haul flights to Cork/Shannon though. DUB has to be the single country hub, given the smallness (both geographic and population) of Ireland.

The growth over the last couple of decades has been spectacular though to be fair, and handled very well to date.

Who’s wasting time and energy on LH flights from Shannon and Cork? If they’re viable(which they are for the most part) then I don’t see the issue

cgcsb

Shn99 wrote: »

Who’s wasting time and energy on LH flights from Shannon and Cork? If they’re viable(which they are for the most part) then I don’t see the issue

There's a constant drum banging, the Examiner newspaper is a big culprit here. Every time there's some announcement of a new development (e.g. the new runway or a third terminal, or even a new route) in Dublin Airport, they get the.... 'But the regions need investment too' mantra out. Not that regional airports shouldn't be supported, but there is some illusion out there about these airports somehow being equally deserving of funding. This is patently false and makes no economic sense. Small countries that I mentioned have one major airport (most of them smaller than Dublin actually), and through the economies of scale are able to offer a longer list of destinations and a longer list of further away destinations. Their efforts would be better spent advocating for improved internal transport within Ireland.

no.8

IngazZagni wrote:

Do the amendments to the new runway affect any operational points? I believe it will still be able to accommodate every aircraft perhaps excluding the A380. So why wouldn't they take advantage of the updated EASA guidelines and reduce construction costs? The entire country should be happy with that especially as it would be in stark contrast to the National Children's hospital fiasco.

IngazZagni wrote:

But that would affect the range of aircraft from that runway.

Who's to say what aircraft will be flying in 30-40 years time. There may be a market in years to come for even larger aircraft or at least aircraft with an 80m wingspan similar to the 380.

She has a much better on field performance than most large aircraft, it's just the runway shoulders and taxiway widths

Shn99

cgcsb wrote: »

There's a constant drum banging, the Examiner newspaper is a big culprit here. Every time there's some announcement of a new development (e.g. the new runway or a third terminal, or even a new route) in Dublin Airport, they get the.... 'But the regions need investment too' mantra out. Not that regional airports shouldn't be supported, but there is some illusion out there about these airports somehow being equally deserving of funding. This is patently false and makes no economic sense. Small countries that I mentioned have one major airport (most of them smaller than Dublin actually), and through the economies of scale are able to offer a longer list of destinations and a longer list of further away destinations. Their efforts would be better spent advocating for improved internal transport within Ireland.

I’m not disputing that, but the original post suggested that we should stop wasting time and energy on LH from Cork and Shannon. I dont see a reason to as for the most party they are commercially viable and compliment local economic development. Should these flights be axed tomorrow and moved to Dublin? I think not. However lets get back on topic

Balf

cgcsb wrote: »

Not that regional airports shouldn't be supported, but there is some illusion out there about these airports somehow being equally deserving of funding.

To be honest, I think there's even more fundamental problems in the kind of coverage you are talking about, like this

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/ourview/dublin-airport-expansion-shannon-and-cork-worthy-of-funds-too-904022.html

The Dublin Airport Authority (DAA) makes a convincing case for the new runway and there is no reason to doubt its projections for the extra business, greater efficiency, and increased revenue the investment will generate.

<snip>

It wouldn’t unduly inconvenience passengers to redirect some of the anticipated new business away from Dublin, and it shouldn’t hurt Dublin, which will always be the country’s number one international airport.

Firstly, it doesn't make it clear that the DAA investment is entirely commercial - funded by debt raised by DAA, and repaid from its commercial income raised by things like passenger charges and car park fees. They present it as if it was funded by the taxpayer, like the childrens hospital.

Secondly, they don't plainly say how they think Government should "redirect" the "new business" to Shannon. If an airline decides it makes sense to run a route into Dublin, what do they think should happen to compel that airline to fly to Shannon instead? What do they think should happen if the airline then finds there isn't enough business to make this compulsory Shannon route a success?

This stuff is basically just the equivalent of them howling at the moon. What, specifically, do they want Government to do? I take it they can't reinstate the Stopover, as that wouldn't be allowed under the relevant trade deals. So what do they expect? Couple of years ago, Shannon got debt-free independence. What further support do they expect?

Cookiemunster

Balf wrote: »

To be honest, I think there's even more fundamental problems in the kind of coverage you are talking about, like thisFirstly, it doesn't make it clear that the DAA investment is entirely commercial - funded by debt raised by DAA, and repaid from its commercial income raised by things like passenger charges and car park fees. They present it as if it was funded by the taxpayer, like the childrens hospital.

Secondly, they don't plainly say how they think Government should "redirect" the "new business" to Shannon. If an airline decides it makes sense to run a route into Dublin, what do they think should happen to compel that airline to fly to Shannon instead? What do they think should happen if the airline then finds there isn't enough business to make this compulsory Shannon route a success?

This stuff is basically just the equivalent of them howling at the moon. What, specifically, do they want Government to do? I take it they can't reinstate the Stopover, as that wouldn't be allowed under the relevant trade deals. So what do they expect? Couple of years ago, Shannon got debt-free independence. What further support do they expect?

Time to take a chill pill here. It's an opinion piece in the Examiner. It's got nothing to do with anyone from Shannon. They've already got quite a few TA flights that are obviously making money for the airlines.

Also why are you picking out Shannon, when the piece repeatedly mentions both Shannon and Cork? Bit of a chip on the shoulder for some reason I reckon.

Tenger

Rojomur wrote: »

Well i just read that Airbus have announced they are to cease production of A380....one less headache for DAA in the future ...infrastructure wise...

I dont think it was ever a headache for them. "A380 capable" was a popular concern about 10 years ago. Less so over the last 4-5 years.

Blut2

Shn99 wrote: »

Who’s wasting time and energy on LH flights from Shannon and Cork? If they’re viable(which they are for the most part) then I don’t see the issue

The "Shannon Lobby" has a history going back decades of doing its best to limit long haul development at DUB. Its the reason the main runway at DUB is so short, most notably. Whenever any development of DUB is mooted they do their best to divert resources away.

Just because the odd long haul flight from Shannon/Cork has decent loads doesn't make them worthwhile airports to focus resources on for long haul development. The network effect is extremely strong with airports, which combined with Ireland's small size, means (unfortunately for SNN/ORK) the country would be best served by focusing as much investment, and as many flights as possible, into one main airport.

Cookiemunster

Blut2 wrote: »

The "Shannon Lobby" has a history going back decades of doing its best to limit long haul development at DUB. Its the reason the main runway at DUB is so short, most notably. Whenever any development of DUB is mooted they do their best to divert resources away.

Just because the odd long haul flight from Shannon/Cork has decent loads doesn't make them worthwhile airports to focus resources on for long haul development. The network effect is extremely strong with airports, which combined with Ireland's small size, means (unfortunately for SNN/ORK) the country would be best served by focusing as much investment, and as many flights as possible, into one main airport.

Again. It was the Examiner based in Cork. Nothing to do with Shannon. And trust me there is no 'Shannon lobby' in Cork. Time to take off the tin foil hat and get over something that happened 40 years ago.

Hotblack Desiato

Balf wrote: »

Secondly, they don't plainly say how they think Government should "redirect" the "new business" to Shannon.

There is a kind of gulag mentality among some in Ireland. Dublin bad, rabble rabble rabble, handicap Dublin therefore the rest of the country wins.

But it's not like that. History shows us that any attempt to handicap Dublin (Decentralisation, Shannon stopover) causes the whole country to lose.

Like it or not, it's only a slight simplificiation to say that Dublin is what is keeping the lights on in the rest of the country, hamstring it at your own peril.

JCX BXC

Blut2 wrote: »

The "Shannon Lobby" has a history going back decades of doing its best to limit long haul development at DUB. Its the reason the main runway at DUB is so short, most notably. Whenever any development of DUB is mooted they do their best to divert resources away.

Just because the odd long haul flight from Shannon/Cork has decent loads doesn't make them worthwhile airports to focus resources on for long haul development. The network effect is extremely strong with airports, which combined with Ireland's small size, means (unfortunately for SNN/ORK) the country would be best served by focusing as much investment, and as many flights as possible, into one main airport.

It has, but other than the odd PR release the Shannon lobby against Dublin developments has been dead for over a century.

I'm very surprised at the anti-shannon sentiment here, unnecessary anger even. However it's probably well that years are moving on if some take such irrational views.

Hotblack Desiato

JCX BXC wrote: »

It has, but other than the odd PR release the Shannon lobby against Dublin developments has been dead for over a century.

Riiiight... the stopover only fully ended barely ten years ago... :rolleyes: and why do you think 10/28 is so short when DAA own plenty of land to extend it?

JCX BXC

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Riiiight... the stopover only fully ended barely ten years ago... :rolleyes: and why do you think 10/28 is so short when DAA own plenty of land to extend it?

Will be 11 years in march.

When was the last attempt by the DAA to extend 28/10 that was blocked by the supposed Shannon Lobby 'mafia'. 11 years is also a significant amount of time in which that runway could have been extended, such long a time that we have since seen the sod turning for, not just an extension, but an entirely new runway!

Any suggestion that Shannon is currently, or in the last decade even, stifling, hindering or slowing any development in Dublin Airport at the moment is complete and utter codswallop.

Shedite27

Blut2 wrote: »

The "Shannon Lobby" has a history going back decades of doing its best to limit long haul development at DUB. Its the reason the main runway at DUB is so short, most notably. Whenever any development of DUB is mooted they do their best to divert resources away.

Just because the odd long haul flight from Shannon/Cork has decent loads doesn't make them worthwhile airports to focus resources on for long haul development. The network effect is extremely strong with airports, which combined with Ireland's small size, means (unfortunately for SNN/ORK) the country would be best served by focusing as much investment, and as many flights as possible, into one main airport.

Ya can't just put everything on the east of the country. Dublin as a city is at breaking point until it sorts out its transport and housing issues. More flights into the regions will allow the other cities to attract more employers, and reduce the stress on Dublin

Balf

JCX BXC wrote: »

Axny suggestion that Shannon is currently, or in the last decade even, stifling, hindering or slowing any development in Dublin Airport at the moment is complete and utter codswallop.

Its right to say Shannon interests no longer have the capacity to obstruct the new runway. It would also be right to say that local residents were actually the people most visibly opposing the development.

But it's also true to say that Shannon interests still seem to hanker after something. Rather than build a strategy on Shannon's strengths, they make statements that seem to suggest that Shannon's success requires Dublin's demise. And the centre for this is Shannon, not Cork.

Its not hard to google recent examples. We'd like to celebrate Shannon's heritage, and anything it might achieve in the future. But these negative sentiments make that hard.

https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/364290/limerick-chamber-event-hears-dublin-airportdominance-is-hurting-shannon.html

Dublin success hurts Shannon. Is that a good way of approaching the topic?

And, really, what is it they want? Some obstacle for Dublin? And/or Knock? What do they want to be done?