Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Jamie2k9

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Also should be pointed out DAA want to spend 2 billion just to bring the airport to 40 million passengers.

Seems very expensive just for that.

More logical would be to put the money toward a much larger new terminal that could take numbers to 60 million if and when required.

2 billion to accommodate just 5 million extra passenger doesn't seem right. All of T2 was cheaper!

Except they are not spending 2 billion for 5m more passengers.....

Kermit.de.frog

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Except they are not spending 2 billion for 5m more passengers.....

Dalton himself says it will bring capacity to 40 million. We are approaching 35 million next year.

By the time the improvements are complete the airport could be handling nearly 40 million, if not more!

Does not make sense.

sparrowcar

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Dalton himself says it will bring capacity to 40 million. We are approaching 35 million next year.

By the time the improvements are complete the airport could be handling nearly 40 million, if not more!

Does not make sense.

It's not being spent to get to 40m, it's being spent to maintain the present 33m on the way to 40m.

HTCOne

If the runway is included in that 2 billion then that will be capable of taking capacity well beyond 40 million. Only part of the investment is limiting to 40 million, taxiways and other infrastructure etc will still be there beyond 40 million.

trellheim

Im guessing the CAR figured that the DAA will be able to get financing for their capital investment pretty easily rather than funding from customers. Its a fast growing profitable airport a pretty safe bet to loan to.

State-backed airport of course its going to get cheap money lol. I cant find anything in DAA's chargin regime specifically for late off block times they are charged for the time on the stand sure but not specifically per late

Kermit.de.frog

Pier 5 on ice it seems. If this is true and DAA want the 7 year retention limit for the facility removed on the south gates then they clearly don't expect a new pier to be constructed within the next 5 years.

Local residents sniff their opportunity to disrupt.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/planning-appeal-could-force-demolition-of-22m-dublin-airport-facility-1.4069237

Looks like the CAR decision has facilitated probable chaos for the airport unable to invest in what it needs while giving local residents the excuse they need.

The group’s spokesperson, Alvean Finnegan, said it was “totally unacceptable” that council planners did not consider that an Appropriate Assessment screening report was necessary.

She also claimed that DAA had repeatedly acknowledged in press releases the increase in passengers and flights at Dublin Airport since 2016.

Ms Finnegan said that if the original condition was upheld the facility would not be available to facilitate growing passenger numbers and “would provide a positive effect on noise at Dublin Airport”.

The nations economy must be brought to a halt due to their noise concerns.

Idbatterim

They want to spend some ridiculous amount moving the security area. Even if passenger charge is cut , can’t they go ahead with the important projects ?

Those two terminals can handle well over forty million. In terms of security areas etc. the issues are airside

Locker10a

Any updates on the remote stands rumored for under the tower ? Is that happening for summer 2020?!

trellheim

They want to spend some ridiculous amount moving the security area. Even if passenger charge is cut , can’t they go ahead with the important projects ?

Would allow for more retail space , nothing at all to do with improving passenger flow . To the suits in DAA more retail space = ching ching bonus land .

See for example what used to be a nice open space past T2 screening now a horrendous cramped IKEA style retail walkthrough with the disadvantage that you can't bypass it like you can in IKEA - it was one of the nicest things about T2 was that the shops were not thrust down your face

The Rape of Lucretia

trellheim wrote: »

See for example what used to be a nice open space past T2 screening now a horrendous cramped IKEA style retail walkthrough with the disadvantage that you can't bypass it like you can in IKEA - it was one of the nicest things about T2 was that the shops were not thrust down your face

That passage from the screening is now much too congested with perfume counters and the passages are way too narrow. There is a a freeer passage looping out to the left, but who wants to make a needless loop away from where they want to get to ?

The Rape of Lucretia

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Pier 5 on ice it seems. If this is true and DAA want the 7 year retention limit for the facility removed on the south gates then they clearly don't expect a new pier to be constructed within the next 5 years.

Bad bad news. The south gates travesty would be bad enough had they been a temporary setup for anything longer than a few months to facilitate other works. Surely given that they have been there for far too long already, a walkway would have been constructed to them in the first place. Not to mention the magical mystery tour all the way around the T2 pier on the bus just to get back beside the plane you just got off. Its like someone set themselves a challenge to see how long could they make a 100m journey take.

davebuck

Quote : Pier 5 on ice it seems. If this is true and DAA want the 7 year retention limit for the facility removed on the south gates then they clearly don't expect a new pier to be constructed within the next 5 years.

The DAA will need to proceed with Pier 5 or else the likes of EI will take their planes elsewhere and expansion will be very limited to the USA by others. If the DAA put as much time into planning as they do to charges the airport would be in a far better position.

Chris_5339762

It would probably be for the best if the South Gates were demolished. Do it properly with proper buses to/from each plane like a normal airport and stop this cheapy crappy approach that the South Gates invented. Terrible invention.

Kermit.de.frog

But it was only ever meant to be temporary until pier 5 was built.

An enhanced south gates is hardly going to make up the difference.

sdanseo

As much as the CfAR decision is ludicrous - I as a taxpayer and passenger would have been quite happy to throw a few EXTRA quid in the pot when I fly, it's a cent on the euro vs the cost of travel in general - the DAA are also milking this for all it is worth.
Quick primary level mathematics show 2 euro less income x 30 million pax is 60 million over a year.
In the context of a capital plan worth 2 billion, that is a little under 5% a year less than envisaged.

They need to get real and find the money through lobbying, borrowing or a combination. Complaining will get them nowhere, especially until the next election when Shane Ross (aka. Lord Corrupt of Stepaside) can be reassigned to the Gaeltacht & Rural Affairs portfolio or something equally becoming to his level of (in)competence.

L1011

Ross is liable to lose his seat. Stepaside Village can't sustain a TD and most of his council support base is gone.

Shay Brennan is the likely replacement

Shedite27

Any inages/projections/plans of pier 5 available?

sdanseo

L1011 wrote: »

Ross is liable to lose his seat. Stepaside Village can't sustain a TD and most of his council support base is gone.

Shay Brennan is the likely replacement

We can only hope. He's an insufferable moron.

Shedite27

Shedite27 wrote: »

Any inages/projections/plans of pier 5 available?

Yes try google

Shedite27

For any more helpful posters, anyone have any links to the plans? All I can find is an article from 2005 which looks very dated
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/plans-unveiled-for-1-2-billion-revamp-of-dublin-airport-1.1182599

sdanseo

Someone made the completely illogical decision to redeisgnate the Piers from one letter to three numbers a few years ago.

e.g. the 400 Pier is what used to be Pier E.

Searching for "Pier F" gets you more results.

Very thorough overview here from the Capital Investment Plan 2010-2014, (published in 2009 shortly after the new runway was green lit), showing the masterplan for all Piers. Almost none of it has happened bar finishing Pier E. (see Page 159)

https://www.aviationreg.ie/_fileupload/Image/2009-03-02_DAA_CIP_2010-2014.pdf

LXFlyer

Dublin Airport capital investment programme consultation document:
https://www.aviationreg.ie/_fileupload/2019%20Determination/Dublin%20Airport%20Consultation%20-%20CIP%202020%20.pdf

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

These are the most recent documents.

https://www.dublinairport.com/corporate/regulatory-planning/cip-2020

Donegal Storm

sdanseo wrote: »

Someone made the completely illogical decision to redeisgnate the Piers from one letter to three numbers a few years ago.

e.g. the 400 Pier is what used to be Pier E.

Searching for "Pier F" gets you more results.

Very thorough overview here from the Capital Investment Plan 2010-2014, (published in 2009 shortly after the new runway was green lit), showing the masterplan for all Piers. Almost none of it has happened bar finishing Pier E. (see Page 159)

https://www.aviationreg.ie/_fileupload/Image/2009-03-02_DAA_CIP_2010-2014.pdf

That pier F design is outdated, the new plan is for an east-west pier, see page 76 onwards here

https://www.dublinairport.com/docs/default-source/cip-2020/submission-to-regulator.pdf?sfvrsn=845c46bd_2

Shamrockj

Its basically only an increase of 3 wide body stands considering you will loose one with the expansion of cbp where 409 is now

sdanseo

Shamrockj wrote: »

Its basically only an increase of 3 wide body stands considering you will loose one with the expansion of cbp where 409 is now

What an absolute waste compared to the plan I linked.

Whoever shelved the original should be sacked. This won't deliver the sort of capacity increase needed or even come close. And that's if IT even happens?!

Jamie2k9

Shamrockj wrote: »

Its basically only an increase of 3 wide body stands considering you will loose one with the expansion of cbp where 409 is now

8 narrow or 4 wide and you lose one narrow body on 4.

Look at it this way 8 A321LR/B757/B737M can use that pier at the same time flying to US. Its prefect for EI growth plans and existing has enough capacity for wide body.

Shamrockj

At least the taxiways will be much improved with dual code E taxiways meaning 2 A330 can taxi passed each other passed pier 4 instead of the current bottle-neck

VivaLasBegas

Pier 5 would be great if built. Not perfect by any means but would be a lot better than the current south gates for pax and create more space on the apron for aircraft.

IE 222

VivaLasBegas wrote: »

Pier 5 would be great if built. Not perfect by any means but would be a lot better than the current south gates for pax and create more space on the apron for aircraft.

Does the addition of pier 5 not just relocate the south gates towards the runway. Given the planned T/A growth Aer Lingus will still need to use the south gates.

Captain_Crash

IE 222 wrote: »

Does the addition of pier 5 not just relocate the south gates towards the runway. Given the planned T/A growth Aer Lingus will still need to use the south gates.

It adds some more gates and space by clearing away the cargo building which is there currently. So more space and more gates, never a bad thing at an airport.


I believe it also means there will be no bottleneck and 2 A330's can pass each other which is not currently possible.