Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

L1011

Noxegon wrote: »

Correct. As I recall last time I was asked who my manager was at work. What that has to do with my desire to travel is anyone’s guess.

I had an actual CBP agent (in Montreal YUL not DUB) challenge me that my job title wasn't real, and ask why I wasn't bringing my (vastly, vastly wealthier :pac:) sister gifts when visiting her; so they do go weird.

Nijmegen

trellheim wrote: »

they were doing the checks before 9/11

They were, and you'll recall I'm sure the pretty major checks they were doing right on the ramp at one stage as well post 9/11. But any chance of them going the other way on existing security measures post 9/11 I don't think is a runner. And as I say, actually the system of profiling and questioning in the terminal that really got its day in Israel is pretty effective.

Beechwoodspark

That eejit who runs Dublin airport on now

He always seems to get an easy ride on the media

Why is Dublin airport expanding if climate change is such a big issue now?

If anything operations should be winding down?

Tenger

Could you explain why an island nation should be winding down the operation of its largest and most profitable airport?

Beechwoodspark

Tenger wrote: »

Could you explain why an island nation should be winding down the operation of its largest and most profitable airport?

The climate impact of The aviation industry has to be addressed.

I would suggest a big tax increase on all flights and wind down dublin airport gradually to reduce our climate footprint.

Blut2

How would you suggest explaining down the winding of Dublin airport to the American multinationals that make up such a huge chunk of the government's tax revenue these days, who make heavy use of it?

Or to the holders of the 260,000 jobs in this country dependent on tourism, and the associated tens of thousands of businesses around the country, that rely on tourists visiting Ireland through Dublin airport?

There are far far less economically damaging ways to lower Ireland's carbon footprint. Improving public transportation, shifting the passenger and goods motor fleets to electric, dramatically improving energy efficiency in older houses, and increasing our current renewable energy total from its dire level of under 9% would all have positive economic effects - and would make a huge difference.

EICVD

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

That eejit who runs Dublin airport on now

He always seems to get an easy ride on the media

Why is Dublin airport expanding if climate change is such a big issue now?

If anything operations should be winding down?

My god I’ve seen some ****e posted on here, this is at the top!

NH2013

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

That eejit who runs Dublin airport on now

He always seems to get an easy ride on the media

Why is Dublin airport expanding if climate change is such a big issue now?

If anything operations should be winding down?

Actually the construction of the new runway should massively reduce the carbon foot print of the airport with significantly reduced airborne holding and reduced taxi-out times.

Based on a rough calculation, 1 day alone it could easily save in excess of 30-40 tonnes of jet fuel being burnt by the aircraft flying into and out of Dublin Airport, over the course of a year that'd be over 13,000 tones of jet fuel from being burnt.

Bussywussy

NH2013 wrote: »

Actually the construction of the new runway should massively reduce the carbon foot print of the airport with significantly reduced airborne holding and reduced taxi-out times.

Based on a rough calculation, 1 day alone it could easily save in excess of 30-40 tonnes of jet fuel being burnt by the aircraft flying into and out of Dublin Airport, over the course of a year that'd be over 13,000 tones of jet fuel from being burnt.

Oooh he/she won't like proper explanation and stats,I wonder has he/she ever been to India or China,bet it is also vegan

Beechwoodspark

EICVD wrote: »

My god I’ve seen some ****e posted on here, this is at the top!

Wait til the greens get in then we will see some progress I hope. Ppl need to wake up to how serious the climate issue is

Jamie2k9

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Wait til the greens get in then we will see some progress I hope. Ppl need to wake up to how serious the climate issue is

That would be the same Greens which will be flying weekly to Brussels from next month.....

Charles Babbage

Noxegon wrote: »

Correct. As I recall last time I was asked who my manager was at work. What that has to do with my desire to travel is anyone’s guess.

This is a bit like the Guard asking you where you are going. They don't really care about the answer, but a normal traveller has no problem answering the question, someone with a made up story does.

Beechwoodspark

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

That would be the same Greens which will be flying weekly to Brussels from next month.....

No, cuffe has committed to and he will be traveling by sea and rail when possible. How do I know ? As it happens I asked him when he was canvassing!

Also there are fantastic new solar powered passenger boats on the market and I predict in years to come we will all be using those more and more.

The days of the huge carbon footprint air industry are numbered unless they evolve into low or zero emission aircraft.

Tenger

The aviation industry is constantly trying to reduce emissions, there are already a number of biofuel programs underway (early days yet though)

If you want to discuss the environmental impact of the industry start a thread in the Environment forum.
No more debate on that subject will be allowed in this thread.
This thread is focused on Dublin airport infrastructure.

Skyknight

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

No, cuffe has committed to and he will be traveling by sea and rail when possible. How do I know ? As it happens I asked him when he was canvassing!

Also there are fantastic new solar powered passenger boats on the market and I predict in years to come we will all be using those more and more.

The days of the huge carbon footprint air industry are numbered unless they evolve into low or zero emission aircraft.

The improvements in engine design have already lead to both a reduction in noise and in fuel usage, as have the increased use of High ratio bypass on small regional jets. Form what I remember, the industry as a whole it amounts for about 2% of the total global emissions. Again as far as I can remember the alternative, Maritime shipping accounts for about 3% total global emissions.

sdanseo

We live on a large island. Any talk of the aviation industry and reducing emissions must be in the context of more fuel efficient operations, not less flight activity.

Yes we require massive investment in other public transport but without a tunnel or bridge to Wales (a pipe dream) none of that investment should be at the expense of the only major airport serving > 6 million people.

L1011

Please read the warning on the end of the previous page in most page lengths (post 4515)

dfx-

Having just experienced Istanbul's new and shiny airport, most of Dublin's infrastructure woes can be forgiven

Kermit.de.frog

Why?

dfx-

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Why?

Runway, terminal, belts and document control are built a far away from each other as possible.

1hr 45 minutes from landing to arriving in the city centre at midnight..40 minute taxi, 20 minute walk to document control, baggage belt as far away as possible with others not used, belt displaying the wrong flight number and slow to get the baggage to the belt.

Talking to locals, the major problem with Ataturk was the passport/document control. It look like they've focused on that and forgotten everything else. They've had basically the freedom of Istanbul on a huge site to build whatever they wanted with five runways and an open cheque and it's no better than the piece by piece growth of Dublin with one runway and arguably a terminal in the wrong place.

Locker10a

Scenes of total embarrassment ensuing currently in T2. Delayed departure due to The 4xx pier being closed off by glass partitions due to gates in use for US departures. Inbound aircraft landed early, crew and gate staff all standing by ready to go, but took 30 mins for someone to come and open the glass wall, the the crowd moved down the pier only to be met by another glass wall.
Is this a regular thing? Very very messy set up, and for such a newly designed terminal, would have been much better using the bus gates.

sdanseo

Locker10a wrote: »

Scenes of total embarrassment ensuing currently in T2. Delayed departure due to The 4xx pier being closed off by glass partitions due to gates in use for US departures. Inbound aircraft landed early, crew and gate staff all standing by ready to go, but took 30 mins for someone to come and open the glass wall, the the crowd moved down the pier only to be met by another glass wall.
Is this a regular thing? Very very messy set up, and for such a newly designed terminal, would have been much better using the bus gates.

There aren't enough US departures (yet) to justify a dedicated pier for US especially with the gap of around 16 hours every day where no US departures take place. There would be a large number of gates out of action if there were no movable partitions.

In other airports in Europe which have areas for Shcengen and non-Schengen flights you do see flexible security arrangements whereby there are a few passport control gates that just aren't staffed and the gates open if the flight doesn't require it. This isn't possible for US CBP because of the nature of their operation being so large plus the almost certain security objection from the US if the facility was allowed to be "pass-through" for non US flights - they would maintain someone could enter and hide until a US departure. So that will never happen.

Agree a more innovative solution is needed and the simplest of those is more capacity. There was a masterplan for a Pier F and large extentions to Pier A and B which have seemingly been buried.

Use of remote gates with a bus terminal is also very common in Europe and works extremely well for short flights which would free up space. Anyone who has passed through Frankfurt for a connecting flight from Short to Long haul has probably experienced how well this can be done.

Jamie2k9

Locker10a wrote: »

Scenes of total embarrassment ensuing currently in T2. Delayed departure due to The 4xx pier being closed off by glass partitions due to gates in use for US departures. Inbound aircraft landed early, crew and gate staff all standing by ready to go, but took 30 mins for someone to come and open the glass wall, the the crowd moved down the pier only to be met by another glass wall.
Is this a regular thing? Very very messy set up, and for such a newly designed terminal, would have been much better using the bus gates.

Strange all departures from 15.00 use the gates down stairs usually and not the ones up stairs. Which gate area was blocked?

How delayed was the departure?

Locker10a

sdanseo wrote: »

There aren't enough US departures (yet) to justify a dedicated pier for US especially with the gap of around 16 hours every day where no US departures take place. There would be a large number of gates out of action if there were no movable partitions.

In other airports in Europe which have areas for Shcengen and non-Schengen flights you do see flexible security arrangements whereby there are a few passport control gates that just aren't staffed and the gates open if the flight doesn't require it. This isn't possible for US CBP because of the nature of their operation being so large plus the almost certain security objection from the US if the facility was allowed to be "pass-through" for non US flights - they would maintain someone could enter and hide until a US departure. So that will never happen.

Agree a more innovative solution is needed and the simplest of those is more capacity. There was a masterplan for a Pier F and large extentions to Pier A and B which have seemingly been buried.

Use of remote gates with a bus terminal is also very common in Europe and works extremely well for short flights which would free up space. Anyone who has passed through Frankfurt for a connecting flight from Short to Long haul has probably experienced how well this can be done.

My flights departure was 1700hrs, the second glass partition was opened at 1659hrs!!
Surly this can be organised better, I was looking out at the unoccupied South gates stands, and couldn’t help thinking a small bit of planning with stand assignments could have avoided the whole fiasco.

Locker10a

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Strange all departures from 15.00 use the gates down stairs usually and not the ones up stairs. Which gate area was blocked?

How delayed was the departure?

There was a flight to Chicago boarding through gate 410.
Another partition was in place at gate 417.

Kev11491

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Strange all departures from 15.00 use the gates down stairs usually and not the ones up stairs. Which gate area was blocked?

How delayed was the departure?

I do recall in February boarding the Los Angeles flight in the area upstairs where the glass seals it off

Rojomur

On the topic of the bottleneck at Terminal 2. Today Frankfurt flight EI 651 landed at 11.49am and Berlin flight Ei 331 landed at 12.02 according to the DAA app. Both were forced to wait on taxiway ...i think E2..just short of where it crosses runway 16/34 for over 40 mins...neither reached final gate ...the eastern side of 400 gates until 12.45pm. This is a ridiculous delay. They were delayed by second wave of longhaul departures and couldnt get through the bottleneck. Surely when going about restructuring this end of the terminal they could have constructed a taxiway whereby a longhaul and shorthaul could pass by eachother. In fairness the gate they ended up at at 12.45 may not have been free but they couldnt even get through to the new extension gates to disembark passengers. By my reckoning passengers would have nearly spend as much time on the ground at either end of the flights as the flying time itself....how Aerlingus arent kicking up about wasted fuel to DAA i dont know....

LeakRate

I often wondered if something like this could have been done to help ease the congestion at the bottleneck, using 16/34 as a north holding point, and east side T2 departures for the south holding point, helping to keep the flow a little better.
Not sure if it would be possible with ILS interference maybe, and the road having to most likely be moved, but just an idea.

[IMG]https://i.ibb.co/YpnxHNr/Superimposed1562588265925-opt.jpg&quot; alt="Superimposed1562588265925-opt" border="0"></a>[/IMG]

Rojomur

LeakRate wrote: »

I often wondered if something like this could have been done to help ease the congestion at the bottleneck, using 16/34 as a north holding point, and east side T2 departures for the south holding point, helping to keep the flow a little better.
Not sure if it would be possible with ILS interference maybe, and the road having to most likely be moved, but just an idea.

[IMG]https://i.ibb.co/YpnxHNr/Superimposed1562588265925-opt.jpg&quot; alt="Superimposed1562588265925-opt" border="0"></a>[/IMG]

Ya i was thinking the same
.. with another extra loop extension for the southgates...they currently have to be pushed back out of the cul de sac as far as 400 gates...thus delaying longhaul flights from pushing back also. If they could drive forward and around ...i think its a parking bay for unused baggage trailers?? ...if they could go around that
..or move it somewhere else altogether
... and then join the loop you drew it would definatly avoid what i witnessed this morning.

Rojomur

I.knew id seen an article on it somewhere...its called an ' End around' hartsfield jackson airport put one in so taxiing aircraft didnt have to cross an avtive runway. Link below is to full article.

https://www.gomaco.com/Resources/worldstories/world36_1/archer.html